Image of the management consultant in public

2011

Image of the Image of themanagement management consultant in public consultant in public

Date: Name: Student number: Study: Email: Address: Supervisor:

Date: 7 august 2011 Name: Joyce de Heus 26 July 2011 1722484 Joyce Studentnumber: de Heus Study: Business Administration 1722484 Specialization: Management ConsultingConsulting Business Administration- specialization Management Emailaddress: [email protected] [email protected] Address: Versendael 9 Versendael 9 4112 NW Beusichem 4112 NW Beusichem prof. Supervisor: Dr. L.I.A. de Caluwé prof. Dr. L.I.A. de Caluwé

Joyce de Heus 7-8-2011 1

Preface Firstly, I would sincerely thank all the respondents who filled in the questionnaire. I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Dr. L.I.A. de Caluwé for his assistance and feedback during the research. I really appreciated the opportunity I got to gather the results for the MCD conference. The invitation to be part of the conference was an honor. The MCD conference was a very interesting, informative and learning full experience. I also would like to thank Dany van den Berg; he was my colleague during the first phase in the research project. It was nice to have someone to do the research with, share findings and experiences with. I would like to thank my friends who shared their experiences writing their thesis, their supporting and the nice distraction they offered me to relax at some moments. Last but not least, I would like to thank my family for supporting and believing in me during the writing of the thesis.

Joyce de Heus

.

2

‗In every society some men are born to rule, and some to advice‘ – Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882).

Management Summary The aim of this research is to investigate how the public thinks about the ‗management consultant‘. In literature there is limited research and data available about the image of consultants in public. Therefore, in literature, business, academics and the public the image of consultants is an often subject of discussion. Through a questionnaire with questions about activities, roles, characteristics, competences and effectiveness of consultants the view of respondents in public is gathered. This research adds the results of this research to the existing literature and that will be ‗the image of consultants in the Dutch society‘ It was quite surprising that a lot of respondents in public even don‘t know what a consultant is. Consultant and the consultancy business seem to be a really unknown area for a lot of people. Therefore, it was also surprising that consultants do not have such a bad image as the media suggest, it was rather quite positive within the Dutch society. This contradiction is a remarkable one. A lot of people in Dutch society who aren‘t familiar with consultants didn‘t fill in the questionnaire and the people who are known with consultants have overall a positive impression of consultants. The negative image is thus created by some negative experiences through society, the low market transparency why people just guess and in most of the cases through the media. Within the questionnaire used in this research five constructs: Advice, Roles, Competencies, Personal characteristics and Effectiveness are investigated. Within the construct Advice the respondents judge the activity ‗Provide clients with help‘, ‗Analyse problem for client‘ and ‗Give advice to client‘ as most important. Within the construct Roles the respondents argue that the role as ‗Inspirator‘, ‗Devil‘s advocate‘ and ‗Expert‘ are the most important for consultants. Within the construct Competencies the respondents think that the competency ‗Stress tolerance‘, ‗Result oriented‘ and ‗Analytical‘ are the most important for consultants. Within the construct Personal characteristics the respondent‘s judge ‗Like challenges‘, ‗Is intelligent‘ and ‗Brings in experience from outside‘ as the most important characteristics. Finally the respondents answered they think consultants are the most effective in ‗Helping organizations to grow‘. Details and more results will be presented in this paper.

3

Table of contents Preface..................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Management Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Table of contents ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 General introduction.................................................................................................................................. 6 1.2 Limited literature ....................................................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Lack of general professionalism ............................................................................................................... 7 1.4 Research question...................................................................................................................................... 8 1.5 Aim of the research ................................................................................................................................... 9 1.6 Answer ...................................................................................................................................................... 9 1.7 Outline ..................................................................................................................................................... 10

2.

Literature ....................................................................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Definition consultant ............................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Professionalization .................................................................................................................................. 13 2.3 Advice ..................................................................................................................................................... 15 2.4 Roles ....................................................................................................................................................... 18 2.5 Competences ........................................................................................................................................... 25 2.6 Personal characteristics ........................................................................................................................... 31 2.7 Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................................... 33

3.

Methods......................................................................................................................................................... 37

4.

Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 40 4.1 Construct 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 40 4.2 Construct 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 42 4.3 Construct 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 45 4.4 Construct 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 50 4.5 Construct 5 .................................................................................................................................................. 55 4.6 Construct 6 .............................................................................................................................................. 61 4.7 Construct 7 .............................................................................................................................................. 66 4.8 SPSS Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 68 4.8.1 Reliability ............................................................................................................................................. 69 4.8.2 Regression analysis .............................................................................................................................. 72

5

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................... 73 5.1 Impression of consultants in public ............................................................................................................. 73 5.2 Advice ......................................................................................................................................................... 74 5.3 Roles ........................................................................................................................................................... 75 5.4 Competences ............................................................................................................................................... 77 5.5 Personal characteristics ............................................................................................................................... 79 5.7 Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................................... 80 5.8

Relations between constructs. .............................................................................................................. 82

6. Discussion ......................................................................................................................................................... 83

4

6.1 Limitations .............................................................................................................................................. 83 6.2 Further research ....................................................................................................................................... 83 6.3 Ending words .......................................................................................................................................... 84 References ............................................................................................................................................................. 85 Appendices ............................................................................................................................................................ 89 Appendix 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 89 Appendix 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 95 Appendix 3 .................................................................................................................................................. 104

5

1. Introduction 1.1 General introduction Nowadays we live in a fast moving world. Businesses are complex, highly dependent on the environment and they have to adapt to changes fast. Therefore, a lot of knowledge, specialism and expertise are required. To fulfill the requirements, demands and goals as a person or organization you need in some cases help from others. You can develop knowledge and expertise within your company, but this is often not realizable according to time, financial and expertise constraints. So, you can ask help from outsiders, for example consultants. The management consulting sector has remained a field largely neglected by scholarly investigation until academic interest emerged in the 1990s. The global management consulting industry has grown at a rapid rate over the past decade (Poulfelt and Payne, 1994, p.421, Fincham, 1999, p.335, Greiner and Ennsfellner, 2009, p.72). On average growth rates were between 15 and 40% per annum throughout the 1980s. This result in revenues of $200 billion and more than one million consultants employing across the world(Greiner and Ennsfellner, 2009, p.72).The consulting market has grown worldwide significantly faster than gross national products, and has become one of the most dynamic service industries (Glückler and Armbrüster ,2003, p.269).The growth can be explained by a number of factors. Managing large companies is becoming a more complex task and the increasing need for specialized knowledge has made it necessary for more and more CEOs to make use of external consultants in their management process (Poulfelt and Payne, 1994, p.421). Fincham (1999, p.336) argued that the consultancy has benefited from the growth in capital mobility and the taste for high level restructuring. Downsizing, delayering and the opening up of China and Eastern Europe, privatization and commercialization are all seen as giving consultants a special role as influencers and opinion formers. Consultants are seen as a group that has gained an insidious power, unaccountable, unseen and all the more mysterious, because managers seem to remain addicted despite the disastrous failures associated with some consultancy assignments (Fincham, 1999, p.336). Management consultants are widely used by management in all major industry sectors and they provide professional services in diverse range areas such as human resource management, logistics, corporate strategy, project planning and marketing (Jang and Lee, 1998, p. 67). Within the consultancy business are different perspectives and views. For example, the rising prominence and influence of the industry can be explained in several ways. Firstly, the strategic analysis which stresses the potency of symbols of persuasion when judging the image of the industry, for example dramatization and performance. Secondly, a structural analysis emphasizes consultancy being pulled along in changes in interfirm relations. On the other hand, consultants also rank among the great folk devils of the business world. The scornful humor they attract , for example ‗the consultant as the guy who borrows your watch to tell you what time it is‘ is anecdotal evidence of a more marginalized status and of the constraints in the industry (Fincham, 1999, p.341).

6

The critical literature in particular is questioning how a non-codified body of knowledge like ‗consultancy‘ could become so apparently influential. According to Fincham (1999, p.335) the growth can be explained by the symbolic nature of consultant strategies and consultancy as a powerful system of persuasion. According to Greiner and Ennsfellner (2009, p.72) the enormous growth results in a constant inflow of new consultants each year, producing a negative drag that pulls down the level of professionalism in the industry.

1.2 Limited literature Many authors have noted that, despite the size and significance of this industry, there doesn‘t seem to be a correspondingly large wealth of empirical data on the practice of management consulting (Appelbaum and Steed, 2005, p. 69). There is research done on several aspects; How to define the markets where consultants operate; why organizations hire consultants; which value they can add; how the relation is between client and consultant; how the image of consultants is amongst clients; which factors influence the image. Overall, the most investigations and studies are consultant-client focused, but the public isn‘t investigated. Thus, there is a shortcoming in the literature within the image of consultants in public. The public is also an important group, because negative thinking within public will influence the thinking of clients. Therefore, people in public can be future clients. So, if there is an unclear and negative image of consultants, people will not choose to work with consultants. If there is a clear, plausible and positive image of consultants, this can be positive in the future for the level of assignments for consultants and successful collaboration, because people will be less skeptical.

1.3 Lack of general professionalism Within the Netherlands and also in other countries around the world there is not a general description about what a consultant exactly is. Which activities, roles, characteristics and activities are important for a consultant? When are you a consultant? Can everybody be a consultant? Is the consultancy business a profession? What makes you a professional consultant? Because there is no general description or perception about a consultant and the profession, there is a lot of discussion about consultants. There is missing some kind of general line/ description which judge you are a professional consultant. This doesn‘t mean that all consultants are not capable in what they are doing, but it is for outsiders not clear which consultant is a professional and which consultant is not a professional at all. According to Glückler and Armbrüster (2003, p.272) the professionalization of management consulting is a very difficult and long-term process. It seems difficult to give one clear line of consultancy and the profession. Another striking point is that leading consultancies have resisted efforts to introduce uniform labeling and professional status measures. There are a lot of negative conversations and rumors about consultants. For a part this can be explained by the uncertainty about the sustainability of the consulting firm, its‘ professional

7

background and status, and the qualification of it‘s‘ staff leads to a reduction in market transparency (Glückler and Armbrüster, 2003, p.273). Professional work is difficult to evaluate, at least for those outside the sphere of the experts concerned (Alvesson, 2001, p.867). However, the idiosyncrasies of clients and the considerable amount of interaction between consultants and their clients in the production process, adds to task uncertainty and to the difficulties of evaluating quality of results and the performance of knowledge-intensive companies according to Alvesson (2001,p.868). Consultants are constructing and celebrating organizational rationality and ratiocination as a ceremony and façade, making grand narratives from ‗organizational myths‘ (Clark and Salaman, 1996, p.176), selling ‗hypocrisy‘, offering expectations institutionalized in consulting expertise (Alvesson, 1993, p.1004), formulating answers before the question has even been asked and making up managers in the fashionable recipes of the day (Clegg and Rhodos, 2004, p.35). Through this research the image of consultants will be measured in public and can add to the process of professionalization of the consultancy business. Therefore, this research and the results will be useful to get insight in the image of consultants in public.

1.4 Research question From an earlier interview with D. Hommes he noticed that he is familiar with the negative conversations, but it is quite surprising that within ‗client satisfaction research‘ most of the clients judge their work with an eight. So, they are very satisfied. Within other consultancy companies this is also the fact. Therefore, why should the consultancy business even exists, if consultants are really incapable and unprofessional? So, here you can ask yourself how well-grounded are those negative conversations? Are they developed through the media and negative thinkers? Does everybody agree and accept the negative conversations? Or do they have their own opinion and experiences? So, how does the public really think about consultants? This discussion and questions which rise around this subject will be investigated in this research with the following research question and six sub questions.

Research question:

What is the image of consultants in public? To answer the research question six sub questions are developed. 1. Which activities are important to a consultant in his or her work according to the public? 2. Which roles fulfill consultants according to the public? 3. How important are specific competences for consultants according to the public?

8

4. Which personal characteristics should consultants have according to the public?

5. Are consultants effective according to the public? 6. What is the relation between effectiveness and the activities, roles, competences, personal characteristics?

1.5 Aim of the research The goal of this research is to gather data which will give insight in the perception of the public related to the consultancy business. For example; are they familiar with the consultancy business? How do they really think about consultants? What do they identify as important activities, roles, characteristics and competences? The results will give insight how the public see consultants. So, through this research I can be identifying in how far the knowledge about consultants in public is limited. A comparison will be made with the existing literature. In the future there will be the opportunity to develop a more accurate image of consultants in public. The image of consultants within the public will result in benefits for a lot of actors and stakeholders. For the consultants this will be an opportunity to understand; how they and their work is seen within public, on which aspects they are judged, what the public experience as important and on which aspects they can growth. For researchers the results will give the opportunity to see where the opinion of the society is in one line with the literature. They can develop new theories and tools which can help by analyzing the quality of consultants. And therefore the results can add to the process of professionalization of the consultancy industry. For the public this research will also have advantages, because they can judge if their thoughts are consistent amongst each other. Whether they are really familiar with the consultancy industry. Perhaps they are only influenced by negative media and negative experiences. It is also a possibility that their thoughts- and views are grounded.

1.6 Answer What can be clearly drawn from the research is that overall the public is relatively unknown with the profession consultancy. It was also quite surprising that the image is rather positive than negative. Within a lot of items there is a majority who answered positive instead of negative. For example within the construct ‗roles‘ the majority of the respondents answered roles as inspirator, expert and devil‘s advocate as important to a consultant. More data, analysis and details will be presented in section 4. Results and in section 5.1 Analysis.

9

1.7 Outline In the following section there is a literature study. Within the literature study existing literature will be discussed. In the first section the ‗good/ most appropriate/ mostly used‘ definition for a consultant will be discussed. Secondly, the discussion around professionalization of the consultancy industry is described. Then different constructs will be discussed which later can be related to the research; advice, roles, competencies, personal characteristics and effectiveness. Then there will be a method section, with an explanation of the research strategy and philosophy used. In the section results the results of the research will be presented and discussed for each construct. There will also be a part with main results of the SPSS analysis. Following through the conclusion. Finally, there will be a discussion with limitations, recommendations for further research and ending words. Of course in the end will the reference list and appendices be presented.

10

2. Literature Firstly, there will be a literature study. The aim of this study is to gather general information about consultants, the consultancy industry and to see in which ways there has been done research about the image of consultants. The first part focuses on developing a deeper view and gathering knowledge within the existing literature about the subject. The literature study exists out of seven parts. In the first part different definition of consultants will be discussed. In the second part the professionalism of the consultancy business will be highlighted. In the other parts subjects related to the sub questions will be discussed; advice, roles, competences, personal characteristics and effectiveness.

2.1 Definition consultant The first question which arises when you are searching for the identity or image of a consultant is: what actually is a consultant? In this chapter definitions from different sources and different perspectives will be presented. In the dictionary a consultant is described as ‗someone who gives expert or professional advice‘ and ‗someone who consults another‘. The International Council of Management Consulting Institutes (ICMCI) gives several definitions to management consulting and a management consultant. 1. Management consulting is the provision of independent advice and assistance to clients with Management responsibilities. This advice can take several shapes, a consultants can be external, internal and may take one or more roles, including being an outsourced function for the client organization. 2. A Management Consultant is an individual who provides independent advice and assistance about the process of management to clients with management responsibilities. The individual can be a generalist or a specialist and may approach an assignment with, for example, a purely financial point of view, as required by the client. 3. A Certified Management Consultant is a management consultant who views management consulting as a profession and meets certain requirements pertain to character, qualifications, experience, independence and competence as defined by the professional body issuing certification. (ICMCI, 2002, p.4) In general, consulting is giving advice. Kubr (2002, p.7) agrees with this and mentions that consulting is essentially an advisory service. Therefore, in the practice of consulting there are many variations and degrees of ‗advice‘ (Kubr, 2002, p.7). Kubr (2002, p.3) makes a distinction in two basic approaches: first a broad functional view which emphasizes that consultants are helpers, and assume that such help can be provided by people in various positions. Second a special professional service and a number of characteristics that such a

11

service must possess (Kubr, 2002, p.3). Kubr sees the two approaches as complementary and adds to his earlier definition of management consulting that he sees it as a professional service, or as a method of providing practical advice and help. Appelbaum and Steed (2005, p.69) adapt in their research the definition of Greiner and Metzger (1983): Management consulting is an advisory service contracted for and provided to organizations by specially trained and qualified persons who assist, in an objective and independent manner, the client organization to identify management problems, analyze such problems, and help, when requested, with the implementation of solutions. In the ‗functionalist‘ literature, the client-consultant relationship is uncritically seen as a knowledge-based, helping relationship that is of a contractual, time-limited character with a welldefined task to solve. The client is according to the functionalist literature the controlling party. This image of the relationship may be contrasted against that presented in the more recent critical literature on management consulting. Here the knowledge content in the relationship is questioned and its‘ basis is attributed to the client‘s anguish in the managerial role, where consultants assist by creating a controllable organization and a positive managerial image. This approach depicts the client as a vulnerable victim of the consultant‘s rhetorical skills and impression management (Werr and Styhre, 2003, p.44) Traditionally the scope of the services offering by management consultants was confined to functions, subjects and problems regarded as part of management, although the scope of ‗management‘ has never been fully and accurately defined. The last years management consultants start to rethink and redefine their business, widening and enhancing their service offerings, merging or establishing alliances with other consultants and professional service firms and abandoning selfimposed restrictions on the sort of work they are prepare to undertake. These changes have been triggered by a number of factors according to Kubr (2002, p.27): growing complexity and sophistication of doing business in national and international environments, market deregulation and liberalization, new opportunities for innovative consulting, growing demand for integrated and ‗onestop‘ professional services, competitive pressure from other professions and the advancement of information technologies and their rapid penetration into management and business processes. Concluding can I mention that it is difficult to define consulting. Describe consulting as ‗giving advice‘ is too limited, but it is difficult to decide what you can add to the definition to give it a more professional content. The following definition from Kubr (2002, p.10) is widely applicable and mostly complete : Management consulting is an independent professional advisory service assisting managers and organizations to achieve organizational purposes and objectives by solving management and business problems, identifying and seizing new opportunities, enhancing learning and implementing changes.

12

2.2 Professionalization The growth of the consulting industry resulted that at one time almost anyone could call himself or herself a consultant. Greiner and Ennsfelner (2010, p.73) argue that high demand for consulting is a function of client needs, not the professionalism of the consultants. Therefore, high industry growth with high compensation attracts marginal people who lack professional skills. Just about anyone these days can call themselves a consultant (Greiner and Ennsfelner, 2009, p.73). In its‘ early years and even now, the business attracts the good, the bad and the indifferent. According to Kubr (2002, p.131) management consulting is an emerging profession, a profession in the making, or an industry with significant professional characteristics and ambitions. Therefore, we must be aware of the gaps that need to be filled and improvements that need to be made. A number of authors have pointed out that consulting services are intangible and are produced and consumed at the same time. Thus, their quality cannot be assessed before the service is delivered (Kipping and Engwall, 2002, p.204). Many investigations recognized problems in determining consulting efforts. They note that ―hard‖ criteria, such as productivity and profitability are often not applicable to consultant programs. Instead, much of the research on consultation is based on criteria such as self-reported measures of satisfaction, leadership and group process (Appelbaum and Steed, 2005, p.75). Therefore, every client will judge the performance of the consultant on other perspectives. According to Alvesson, Sturdy and Handly (2009, p.261) it is important to understand the diversity in client positions, because it shapes the ways consultants and clients interact. The position will affect the kind of input, information and access consultants may expect, as well as criteria for performance. They also mention that a range of possible and sometimes shifting cultural, institutional and personal factors can influence different perceptions (Alvesson et all., 2009, p.261). The diversity between practitioners in these industries, for example skills and training, the intangible content as well as the popular trivialization of these occupations ultimately complicates the ability of workers to launch collective ‗professionalization projects‘ (Larson 1977; Witz 1992). It is well established that there can be a significant variation in consultancy projects, practices and styles and client-consultancy relationships, both between client sectors and, in particular, small specialist consulting firms and large transnational practices(Sturdy, 1999, p. 391). The consultancy business is lacking institutional support and recognized credentials for their professional status. Actually expert service work must demonstrate their professionalism and qualifications in interaction. Consultancy does often not rely on formalized, codified and conventional forms of legitimating to prove their competence; these workers have to rely on a lot of other signifiers to establish their authority, such as their own bodies, applications of new techniques, keeping up with the changing literature, and an authoritative stance that indicates competence (George, 2008, p.123). Some knowledge intensive companies standardize their products; for example, in management consultancy it is increasingly common for companies to develop methodologies for systematic work (Werr et al., 1997). According to Fincham (1999, p.341) consultants use strategies, but have also

13

‗ability to speak to managers‘. Consultants sell ‗advice‘ and ‗solutions‘ which may take the shape of an intangible service (Fincham, 1999, p.348). The considerable amount of interaction between consultants and their clients in the production process, adds to task uncertainty and to the difficulties of evaluating quality of results and the performance of knowledge-intensive companies (Alvesson, 2001, p. 868). Given the intangibility of management consultancy work its‘ value is for a big part produced in the client-consultant relationship (Werr and Styhre, 2003, p. 43). Kubr (2002, p.130) uses the following criteria to define a profession: 1.

Knowledge and skills ( professional education and training, practical experience)

2. The concept of service and social interest (remunerations and broad social needs kept in mind) 3. Ethical norms (proper- improper) 4. Community sanction and enforcement ( recognition through community; social role, status ethical and behavioral norms of the profession) 5. Self-discipline and self-regulation (voluntary membership institutions, associations, chambers, etcetera) To measure a consultant as a professional the criteria mentioned by Kubr (2002, p.130) can be applied. Simply doing consulting does not turn it into a professional service. Marvin Bower, former managing partner for McKinsey & Co., once contended that simply being hired by McKinsey was sufficient qualification for the new employee to be called a ‗professional consultant‘. However, the problem is that all firms are not McKinsey; a majority of consultants work in small and mid-sized firms or as independents where they are left to ‗learn on the job‘ which can be valuable, but still a shortcoming when consultants haven‘t been fully educated in the basic consulting skill sets. Small firms or independents don‘t have the budget to afford inside training programs or outside education and many large firms working shortly within organizations (Greiner and Ennsfelner, 2010, p.72). Unlike for most professions, there are no specific education requirements for consulting. A substantial majority of management consultants doesn‘t belong to any professional organization concerned with improving the quality of consulting (Greiner and Ennsfelner, 2009, p.73). Continuous debate exists among scholars about whether consulting is a profession. In 2006, Christopher McKenna of Oxford publishes a history of management consulting under the title ‗The World‘s Newest Profession: Management Consulting in the Twentieth Century‘. He concludes that, despite its rapid growth, consultancy ‗not yet is a recognized profession‘. In contrast, Greiner and Ennsfelner (2009, p.73) contend that consulting is a profession, because of the work requirements. Greiner and Ennsfelner (2009, p.73) draw on various definitions of professionals to determine the underlying characteristics of a profession and the nature of professional work. Only a few consultants belong to a professional consulting association, and only 10,000 in the world have the title Certified Management Consultant, which is less than 1% out of the total consultant population. IBM Corp. and Accenture Lt. each have over 100,000 employees, and most of their consultants aren‘t certified as CMCs (Greiner and Ennsfellner, 2009, p. 74).

14

However, it may not be so important to decide whether consulting is a profession. Consulting has demonstrated that it can exist and be successful without such a decision. More important are the quality and other standards applied by consulting firms and individual consultants, who can demonstrate their professional values and behavior without waiting for the sector to achieve recognition as a profession (Kubr, 2002, p.131).

2.3 Advice In this part the construct Advice will be discussed. Existing literature will be discussed. This literature will be related to the items within the construct advice. Finally, there will be a list with the items selected for the questionnaire. In general, Kubr (2002, p.7) argues that consulting is giving advice. So, consulting is essentially an advisory service. Jang and Lee (1998, p.67) also assume that the main role of consultants is advising. In the literature on management consultancy the need for specialist, nonbiased ‗expertise‘ is often the primary motive for purchasing external advice (Wellington ad Bryson, 2001, p. 941). Therefore, in practice there are many variations and degrees of ‗advice‘ in consulting (Kubr, 2002, p.7). Thus, what is advice? Within the third section of the questionnaire there are 12 items relating to advice. Question 3.3 states ‗give advice to client‘ as an activity central to a consultant. Kubr (2002, p.10) also mention that the advice should be independent, which results in item 3.4 ‗be independent from client‘. Werr and Styhre (2003, p.47) argues that consultant‘s independence from the client is one of the central characteristics of consultants. Arguments are that they can view organizational problems ‗objectively‘; remain separate from internal power struggles, hidden agendas and so on. According to Kubr (2002, p.10) management consultants should also assist managers and organizations to achieve organizational purposes and objectives by solving management and business problems, which can be related to the statement ‗3.2 analyze problems for clients‘, ‗3.11 advice about short term problems‘ and ‗3.8 solve strategic issues‘. Therefore, Kubr (2002, p.10) also mention identifying and seizing new opportunities as a task of a consultant, which can be related to the item ‗3.10 seize new market opportunities for the client‘. Finally, Kubr (2002, p.10) mention in his definition about management consulting that it is important to implement changes which is given in item ‗3.6 implement solution for/with client‘. According to Werr and Stjernberg (2003, p. 889) the different knowledge sources consultants refer to in planning, designing and carrying out consulting assignments revealed three basic knowledge elements: methods and tools, cases and experience. Question 3.5 of the questionnaire focuses on these aspects which content; base activities on expertise, tools and methods. Werr and Stjernberg (2003) summarized the characteristics and roles of a consultant in Figure 1.

15

Figure 1: The characteristics of three knowledge elements in Management Consulting

(Reference: Werr and Stjernberg, 2003)

Werr and Stjernberg (2003, p.886) identify six functions of methods in the work of management consultants: facilitating collaboration and knowledge transfer from consultant to client, facilitating the collaboration between client representatives by providing a common framework, providing cognitive support to the individual consultant, providing an organizational memory, facilitating experience exchange and enabling flexible staffing. The research of Werr and Stjernberg (2003, p.889) was within the companies Accenture and Ernst & Young. They recognize that both companies use a large number of methods and tools. Consultants see those tools as a source of knowledge when they plan and execute consulting projects. Methods provide the consultants with models, templates and checklists to support and structure their work. The development and maintenance of these methods and tools in both organizations was the responsibility of practicing consultants. These consultants recurrently reviewed the activities, applying a specific method or tool in order to identify successful innovations of practices, ideas picked up from the client organization, or common problems requiring further development (Werr and Stjernberg, 2003, p.889). Methods need continuously updates in order to reflect the organization‘s approach in different problem areas. Improvements to a method could include the adding or elimination of activities and tools, changing the sequence of activities, altering checklists, and so on. Experiences from ongoing projects could also initiate the development of entirely new methods and tools based on a review of the consultancy‘s practice in this area. Werr, Stjernberg and Docherty (1997, p.306) argue that the view of the consultant on the method is the common interface to a set of concepts in need of adaption, rather than as a ‗recipe‘ for ‗how to do it‘ that enables abstract and simplified methods to facilitate learning in highly complex and personal situations. To be as consultant known with the method and stay up to date are important requirements for Accenture and Ernst & Young (Werr and Stjernberg, 2003, p. 890). Therefore, Werr and Stjernberg (2003, p. 891) notice that the importance of the method

16

in the consultant‘s day-to-day work moved into the background. Within Accenture and Ernst & Young they use them as guide for action in ongoing projects (Werr and Sterjnberg, 2003, p. 890). So, consultants don‘t use methods as systematic application, but it influence the work of the consultant through the understanding of the method (Werr and Stjernberg, 2003, p. 890).Methods and tools thus provide abstract and generally applicable structures to the overall consulting process and the solving of specific problems, by defining a number of activities and their sequence, as well as central concepts in thinking about a client organization and the consulting process. This shared structure, not always strictly used in the consulting process, is referred by the consultants as an important enabler of their working in project groups. Methods made communication between the consultants more effective, as the senior consultants could refer to the method when explaining to their junior colleagues what to do (Werr and Stjernberg, 2003, p.890). In an earlier study of Werr, Stjernberg and Docherty (1997, p.301) the role for methods are described as facilitation of collaboration and co-ordinate action within the client company. Thus, item 3.12 ‗follow established procedures‘ doesn‘t seem to be a central activity to a consultant. Cases provide an extension of the method, in the sense that they illustrated its‘ translation into use. Cases don‘t replace the method, but complement the method by it‘s‘ use in different situations. The structure of documents produced in the cases and the terminology used in these documents followed the consultancies‘ shared methods and tools. A senior consultant in E&Y describes the method used as ‗the backbone of the company‘s knowledge system‘, in that it provides a shared frame of reference and terminology that enable the sharing and reuse of material from previous cases. In literature Turner (1982) developed a continuum with eight categories of client-consultant relationships; these categories illustrate the level of the client‘s involvement and need for collaboration with the consultant. The eight task categories Turner (1982) identifies are: (1) Providing information to a client; (2) Solving a client‘s problem; (3) Making a diagnosis, this may necessitate redefinition of the problem; (4) Making recommendations based on the diagnosis; (5) Assisting with implementation of recommended actions; (6) Building a consensus and commitment around a corrective action; (7) Facilitating client learning; and (8) Permanently improving organizational effectiveness. Most of these eight categories can be related to the items given in the construct advice. What makes the construct more valid? Overall, Appelbaum and Steed (2005, p.71) adds to this that collaboration seems to be an important activity within the work of consultants. Schein agrees with this from the doctor role, he mentions that strong relationships and developing trust are important. Stronger relationships in consulting will result in more partnership with mutual respect and will improve the

17

client‘s effectiveness (Appelbaum and Steed, p.71). This is given in item 3.9 ‗work in close collaboration with the client‘. Within the research of Poulfelt and Payne (1994, p.426) they investigates the level of importance of the following points to use consultants; -

To provide expertise, knowledge and new methodologies

-

To provide extra resources

-

To present new solutions to the organization‘s problems

-

To act as an external catalyst and moderator

-

To bring an independent and neutral perspective to the organization

-

To legitimize results and for political motives

It is well known in literature the requirement for specialist, non-biased ‗expertise‘ is often the primary motive for purchasing external advice (Wellington and Bryson, 2001, p.941). Some clients use external consultants to solve particular problems, some because they need an external impartial view, and others, because they have found that they are compelled to involve consultants, because of a crisis (Poulfet and Payne, 1998, p.421). Within the questionnaire the following question related to activities will be asked: To what extent are the following activities central to being a consultant? Items within this construct are chosen grounded on existing literature and on knowledge of the profession: 1. Provide clients with help 2. Analyze problems for client 3. Give advice to client 4. Be independent from client 5. Base activities on expertise, tools and methods 6. Implement solutions for/with client 7. Intervening in the client´s organization 8. Solve strategic issues 9. Work in close collaboration with client 10. Seize new (market) opportunities for clients 11. Advise about short term problems 12. Follow established procedures (code of conduct)

2.4 Roles Within this part the construct Roles will be discussed. The existing literature related to the roles of consultants will be discussed. The literature which is given in the items will be highlighted. Finally, there will be a list of items chosen for the questionnaire according to the roles of consultants.

18

The last two decades organizations respond to trends in outsourcing and downsizing which results in a range of tasks that were previously performed in-house, therefore these results in an expanding market for management consultants. The result of this was new roles for clients and consultants and radical shifts in the nature of the client-consultant relationship (Werr and Styhre, 2003, p.44). There is a lot of literature available and a lot of different perspectives according to the roles of consultants. Within the following chapter the literature relating to the construct ‗roles‘ and the corresponding items will be discussed. Schein mentions that consultants fulfill three roles: 1) The expert who provides information, 2) The expert in a doctor role and 3) The process consultant (Bouwmeester, 2010, p.39). The expert who provides information is a consultant who provides an independent perspective and look for specific challenges. The consultant with a doctor role takes a diagnostic approach to analyze the organizational problems with help of their experience, knowledge and diagnostic abilities. Kubr (2002, p.70) mentions the resource role (also referred to as the expert or content role), consultant helps the client by providing technical expertise and doing something for and on behalf of the client: he or she supplies information, diagnoses the organizations, undertakes a feasibility study, designs a new system, trains staff in a new technique, recommends organizational and other changes, comments on a new project envisaged by management, and the like. Consultants are traditionally regarded as having a high level of specialized knowledge and expertise as part of their personal power (Kaarst-Brown, 1999, p. 554). Werr, Stjernberg and Docherty (1997) also argue that consultants traditionally have the role of expert in their area. Jang and Lee (1998, p.68) argue that a client expects that the consultant draw from experience and specific knowledge. During the process consultants provide overall a lot of expertise (Appelbauw and Steed, 2005, p. 70). Which is discussed in item 4.7 ‗Expert: someone who knows what should be done‘. Kubr, (2002, p.70) adds here that in the process role, the consultant as an agent of change attempts to help the organization solve its own problems by making it aware of organizational processes, of their likely consequences, and of intervention techniques for stimulating change. This can be related to item 4.10 ‗Process consultant: helper who facilitates‘. Even as what Edgar Schein describes; process consultation as ‗the creation of a relationship with the client that permits the client to perceive, understand and act on the process events that occur in the client‘s internal and external environment in order to improve the situation as defined by the client‘. Secondly, Nees and Grenier (1985) propose five categories of consultants: (1) The mental adventurer: analyzes difficult problems such as long-term scenarios for country development, by applying rigorous economic methods and make use of his or her experience base. (2) The strategic navigator: bases his or her contribution on quantitative results of the market and competitive dynamics, and then recommends courses of action without taking the client‘s perspective into account. (3) The management physician: makes his or her recommendations from a thoroughly understanding of the internal dynamics of the client organization, looks often to objectivity to gain a realistic

19

perspective on what is achievable. This is described in item 4.4 ‗Advocate of the devil: critical outsider‘. (4) The system architect: helps clients by redesign processes, routines and systems, always in close cooperation with the client. (5) The friendly co-pilot is seen as a facilitator rather than as an expert, and provides no new knowledge to the client (Nees and Grenier, 1985). This category is given in item 4.11 ‗Friendly copilot: a more experienced sparring partner‘. Nees and Grenier‘s model show many similarities to Schein‘s (1990) study, for example the mental adventurer can be considered as similar to the expert, the strategic navigator, management physician and system architect correlate with the ―doctor-patient‖ model and the friendly co-pilot aligns with the process-consultation model. Institutionally organized strategy consultants can be compared to the strategic navigator and management physician segments. Appelbaum and Steed (2005, p.74) mention three positive value adding roles for consultants: the partner, who establishes mutual accountability and ownership of engagement objectives, process and outcomes; the capability-builder focuses on enhancing the client‘s capacity to solve similar problems with its‘ own resources; and the truth teller who builds active and accurate feedback systems with the client (Appelbaum and Steed, 2005, p. 74). The ICMCI (2002, p.5) recognize multiple roles which management consultants can fulfill: generalist, specialist, process versus content, diagnostic versus implementation, custom versus packaged, internal versus external, large versus small firm, coach /mentor, facilitator and more. According to Kubr (2002, p.72) consultants nowadays are not only resource or process oriented, but their role is further refined. Kubr (2002, p.75, 76) mentions a list with roles consultants can fulfill: 1. Advocate; in an advocate role, the consultant tries to influence the client. This advocate role can be related to the earlier mentioned item 4.4 ‗Advocate of the devil: critical outsider‘ and to the role 4.2 as ‗Legitimizer‘, because the advocate role according to Kubr is used to persuade the client. 2. Technical expert; Expert who uses special knowledge, skill and professional experience to provide a service to the client. This role can be related to item 4.7 ‗Expert: someone who knows what to do‘. 3. Trainer and educator; the consultant may design learning experiences, or train or teach by imparting information and knowledge directly. This role and the following role can be related to item 4.6 ‗a consultant as coach: who teach individuals or teams to become better‘. 4. Collaborator in problem-solving; the helping role assume by the consultant uses a synergistic approach to complement and collaborate with the client in the perceptual, cognitive and action-taking processes need to solve the problem. This role can be related to the role as 4.2 ‗Legitimizer: provide support for decisions‘.

20

5. Identifier of alternatives; the consultant establishes relevant criteria for assessing alternatives and develops cause-effect relationships for each, along with an appropriate set of strategies. In this role, the consultant is not a direct participant in decision-making, but a retriever of appropriate alternatives and facing the decision-maker. The consultant is here some kind of inspirator: deliverer of new ideas (item 4.3). 6. Fact finder; the consultant functions basically as a researcher. 7. Process specialist; this is the pure process role. The consultant focuses on the interpersonal and intergroup dynamics affecting process of problem-solving and change. How things are done and help the client to integrate interpersonal and group skills and events with taskoriented activities, and to observe the best match of relationships. This is given in item 4.10 ‗process consultant: helper who facilitates‘, but also to item 4.9 ‗team builder: builder of teams and cooperation‘. 8. Reflector; the consultant stimulates the client to prepare and make decisions by asking reflective questions which may help to clarify modify or change a given situation. In the questionnaire the role as reflector can be related to the role as critical outsider ‗devil‘s advocate‘ (item 4.4) and to item 4.11 ‗friendly co-pilot: a more experienced sparring partner‘.

Within Figure 2 different roles are described with different perspectives from different researchers.

FIGURE 2 This study

Williams and Woodwa rd 19994 Expert

Expert

Manager

Executive synergist

Research er Counselo r Politician

Researche r Educator Tutor Conciliat or Powerbroker

Roles acquired by management consultant Wooten and White (1989)

Margerison(19 88)

Schein(198 7)

Gallesich(19 82)

Stryker(198 2)

Technical expert Resource linker

Doctor Travel agent

Expert The process

Technical expert Advisor Valuator Supervisor

Expert

Sales-person

Researcher/theoreti cian Educator/trainer Model Detective

Detective

Doctor

Researcher

The process

Counselor Teacher

Sanitaryengineer marketer Doctor

Broker

Reference :(Jang and Lee, 1998, p.69)

21

Within Figure 3 roles are defined. By directive behavior the consultant assumes a position of leadership, initiates activity or tells the client what to do. In the non-directive role he or she provides information which the client can use or not (Kubr, 2002, p.73). FIGURE 3 Illustration of a consultant’s role on a directive and non-directive continuum Reflector

Process Specialist

Fact Identifier of Finder alternatives

Collaborator in problemsolving

Trainer/ educator

Technical expert

Advocate

Client

Level of consultant activity in problem-solving

Consultant

Non-directive

Raises Questions for reflection

Observes problemsolving processes and raises issues mirroring feedback

Directive

Gathers data and stimulates thinking

Identifies alternatives and resources for client and helps assess consequences

Offers alternatives and participates in decisions

Trains the client and designs learning experiences

Provides information and suggestions for policy or practice decisions

Proposes guidelines persuades, or directs in the problemsolving processes

Reference: (Kubr, 2002, p.74)

The consultant may be both a subordinate to control and a peer to collaborate with, an external expert and a colleague, an insider and an outsider (Werr and Styhre, 2003, p. 51).The outsider role enables consultants to view the client organization with ‗fresh eyes‘ and to generate objective information-characteristics that are central to value creation in management consulting, according to the functionalist perspective (Werr and Styhre, 2003, p.47). A consultant needs the outsider position to critically discuss interests, preferences and objectives (Bouwmeester, 2010, p. 87). According to neoinstitutional arguments, the otherness of consultants offers an important benefit to those who hire them in terms of reputation. The outsider position can be related to item 2.4 ‗devil‘s advocate: be a critical outsider‘. The public image of consultants is that they supply knowledge to a receiving client. This reputation, especially of large consulting firms, provides their advice with a high degree of legitimacy together with the image of being up-to-date and the cutting edge of business solution. The power literature addresses the importance to the external consultant of recognizing, acquiring and responsibly using power (Kaarst-Brown, 1999, p. 542). The otherness of consultants and their reputation as someone who brings in ideas, that is, organizational decision-makers who turn to consultants, with legitimacy, because the work of the consultants certifies the rationality of an approach or a decision

22

(Kipping and Engwall, 2002, p.205). Item 4.3 is related to this literature and states that a consultant fulfills the role as ‗Inspirator: deliverer of new ideas‘ and item 4.2 argues that a consultant fulfill the role as ‗Legitimizer who provide support for decisions‘. Alvesson (2001, p.869) also argues that experts imply legitimacy. In the context of uncertainty, the enrollment of consultants may also make the avoidance of responsibility easier if and when ‗blame-time‘ occurs. As Jackall (1988) points out, managers want to avoid making decisions and are inclined to involve many people in the decision making process in order to distribute the blame (Alvesson, 2001, p.869). Sturdy mentions that consultants can be used as ‗scapegoat‘ (1999, p.404). Clients can use the consultants here as ‗hired gun (item 4.5), they will bring bad news management don‘t want to bring‘. It can even be related to construct competences item 5.14 and 5.15; ‗good at avoiding accountability for bad advice‘ and ‗good at getting people fired‘. Alvesson and Johansson (2002, p.233) argue that consultants are pride in being professionals who ‗know better‘ than the client. They see themselves as technical or process experts who help a client from a state of uncertainty to a state to harmony and security (p.239). Fincham (1999, p.339) even argues that consultants create a sense of uncertainty by addressing problems in order to get their solutions better accepted. The solutions reduce the created uncertainty. That is what consultants have to offer (Bouwmeester, 2010, p. 89). For many, especially those who take an institutional perspective, consulting is closely related to the creation of order. From such a perspective, it is stressed that the importance of highly professionalized consultants is that they maintain internal and external legitimacy and that consulting reducing complexity, producing consensus, and seducing management into simple, comfortable and secure solutions. Clegg et al., (2004, p.35) mention that contradicting to this Karl Weick suggests that it is important to bring chaos, noise and disorder into organizations. A consultant must be in a position to make an unbiased assessment of any situation, tell the truth, and recommend frankly and objectively what the client organization needs to do without having any second thoughts on how this might affect the consultants own interests (Kubr, 2002, p.8). From the research from Kaarst-Brown (1999, p. 557) a client noticed consultants fulfill in some situations ‗nonconsultant roles‘; here they don‘t use the consultant‘s skills, expertise or contracted task, but to get everyone‘s attention. Clegg et al., (2004, p.31)describe the role of the management consultant as a parasitical one; a source of ‗noise‘ that disrupts established ways of doing and being by introducing interruptive action into the space between organizational order and chaos. Consultants can open up these spaces and create concepts that encourage new possible realities and real possibilities. Clegg et al., (2004, p.32) mention that the intervention and communication of consultants can encourage organizational learning and innovation. Appelbaum and Steed (2005, p.74) refer to the three more ‗negative‘ roles of consultants as the messiah, the dependency-builder, and the colluder. These roles can emerge when consultants are motivated by self-interest. The way that consultants can create value is through ‗commitment to positive client change‘. They emphasize ‗using every skill available to support the client, while

23

pushing the client forward, often against great resistance‘. Fincham (1999, p.341) argues in his article that a consultant sometimes is seen as ‗the guy who borrows your watch to tell you what time it is‘ (Bouwmeester, 2010, p. 1). Bloomfield and Danielie (1995, p.39) mention in their discussion that: ‗consultants are charlatans; they simply tell organizations what they already know‘. Van Aken (2001, p.314) argues that consultants should develop a ‗body of knowledge‘ to free themselves from the accusation of charlatanism. Item 4.12 states the consultant as ‗charlatan: seller of hot air‘. Clark and Salaman (1996, p. 85) add to the literature that they characterize consultants as ‗witch doctors‘. Alvesson and Johansson (2002, p.229) write that academics criticize consultants for lack of deep knowledge, for being shallow, overpaid and immoral, and even for causing major corporate problems. Economists like Goodwin (1988), Peacock (1992) and Thornton and Ward (1999, p. 104) characterize the consultant as a ‗hired gun‘ as opposed to the neutral, independent academic expert (Bouwmeester, 2010, p. 2). The view of Bouwmeester (2010, p.2) is related to item 4.5 ‗Hired gun: bring bad news management doesn‘t want to bring itself‘. Clark and Majone (1985, p.6) argue that academic advice often lacks relevance: ‗For in practice, scientific inquiry cannot discover most of the things that policymakers would like to know. Clark (1995) argues that the success of consultants depends on impression management. This includes the suits they wear, their PowerPoint presentations, their image, and so on. Fincham (1999, p.38) also refers to this view: ‗the sheer force of rhetoric is emphasized‘. According to Fincham (1999, p.38) consultants often say nothing new, but they say it in such a nicely way that most clients are satisfied and even motivated to carry on with consultants. In the literature a lot is written about the roles of consultants. The roles the consultants have to fulfill are highly dependent on the type of client, consultant and assignment. In this chapter a lot of roles are described and those which are the most important according to the literature and professional knowledge and experience became items in the questionnaire. 1. Extra pair of hands: help management do things management do not have time for 2. Legitimizer: provide support for decisions 3. Inspirator: deliverer of new ideas 4. Devil´s advocate: be a critical outsider 5. Hired gun: bring bad news management doesn´t want to bring itself 6. Coach: teach individuals or teams to become better 7. Expert: someone who know what should be done 8. Networker: connector to other organizations 9. Team builder: builder of teams and cooperation 10. Process consultant: helper who facilitates 11. Friendly co-pilot: a more experienced sparring partner 12. Charlatan: seller of hot air

24

2.5 Competences Within this construct the competences which are required for a consultant will be discussed. As consultant you should have specific competences, like you should have in every other profession. Within the literature there are several competences described, selected and recognized. The parts in the literature which are used in the items will be discussed. In the end you can find a list with the items chosen for the questionnaire. From the research of Appelbaum and Steed (2005, p.70) McKinsey & Company and BCG give the following six reasons to hire an external management consultant: (1) They provide competence not available elsewhere; (2) They have varied experience outside the client; (3) They have time to study the problem; (4) They are professionals; (5) They are independent; and (6) They have the ability to create action, based on their recommendations. So, organizations active in consulting identify that competences are an important part of the consultancy. Other reasons here can be related to earlier described activities or roles in the constructs advice and roles. Which competences do you need as consultant? How important are these competences for the consultancy profession? And if a consultant don´t act to standards or developed frameworks is he/she not capable as consultant? No, every client and assignment requires another consultant with other competencies. De Caluwè and Reitsma (2010, p.31) developed a framework within their research where the relationships between variables are given. FIGURE 4 Overview of Significant Relationships in the Research Model

Context

Competencies

Approach

Interventions

Background

Style of change

Basic competencies

Own repertoire

Reference: (Caluwé and Reitsma, 2010, p. 31)

25

Out of the framework can be concluded that competencies will be influenced through the approach, intervention, own repertoire and the background of the consultant. Although Sturdy (1999, p.400) mentions that not only industry knowledge is important, but also political and practical skills to both consultant and client. Werr and Stjernberg (2003, p.894) argue that important characteristic of the work of the consultants in their research was its‘ collective nature. Consulting projects (from proposal to implementation) were generally carried out in teams that combined varying competences and levels of expertise. Management consulting within these consultancies was thus a collective process displaying organizational competence (Werr and Stjernberg, 2003, p.894). The ICMCI defined a ‗Certified Management Consultant (CMC) ‗as a management consultant who meets the ‗core competences‘. ICMCI (2002, p.4) argue that competency focus on behavior and outcomes. And the body of knowledge is used as an input to the development and learning /qualifications. Competence implies acquired knowledge and a relation between the various components of knowledge and competency, especially those called ACT – acting, communicating and thinking like a management consultant(ICMCI, 2002, p.4).There are three core components within the ‗Core Competency Framework of the ICMCI : 1. values and behavioural skills 2. technical, consultancy and specialization skills 3. business acumen ICMCI developed the following ‗Core Competency Framework‘:

FIGURE 5: Core competency framework. Major

Sub set

High level component

Values and behavior

Beliefs

Values, ethics & professionalism

Analytical skills

Observations & analysis Conceptualization & problem solving

Relationships

Complexity, change & diversity Communication & presentation Responsibility & accountability Influencing

Technical competence

Business Acumen

Personal development

Focus and time management Self development

Specialization

Knowledge and skills

Consultative

Client focus Project management Consultative process Knowledge Partnering and networking Tools and methodologies Risk and quality management

Consultant Business

Consultancy environment

26

Commercial aspects of assignment Client Business

External awareness Business knowledge Understanding the client Client‘s project imperative

Reference: (www.icmci.org)

Consultants can only be effective in their role according to ICMCI (2002, p.15), if they demonstrate their abilities in each of the described competency areas as required by the particular engagement and the role they play therein. These competencies can be broadly described as: • Consulting competencies • General and specialized knowledge • Managerial skills • Industry and or functional/technical competencies • Personal and interpersonal competencies (ICMCI, 2002, p.15) However it is important to mention that the data from the ICMCI have as far as I know no empirical evidence. As appeared earlier in the framework of de Caluwé and Reistma (2010, p.31) a distinction is made between basic skills and competencies and intervention specific competencies. Firstly, basic competencies are: always needed independent of the context, the characteristics of the consultant or specific intervention. Secondly, intervention specific competencies are coupled to the intervention. Within their research de Caluwè and Reitsma (2010) developed a framework with an overview of the competencies needed for a consultant. They made a distinction within their framework between basic competencies, intervention-specific competencies and approach-specific competencies.

27

FIGURE 6 Overview of Basic Competencies and Approach- specific and Intervention-specific Competencies Approach-specific Competencies

• Expert approach: Entrepreneurship, market oriented, boldness, independence, result orientation, quality orientation, leadership, consultation and risk awareness

•

Process approach: Restraint, organizing ability, making coalitions, energy, awareness of organizational context, coaching, personal appeal and decisiveness

Intervention-specific Competencies

• Strategy and processes between people: Awareness of organizational context

•

Structure, processes and HRM: Planning, organizing ability en result oriented

•

Governance and control: Boldness, planning, result oriented, attention to details and problem solving

•

Training, development and continuous learning and changing: Coaching and Inspiring

Basic Competencies

• • • • • •

Showing resilience: Flexibility Analyzing: Analytical skills, Conceptual thinking, Learning orientation, Creativity Considering: Balanced judgement, Awareness of external environment, Generating vision Facilitating: Listening, Sensitivity Influencing: Communication, Presentation, Persuasion Inspiring confidence: Integrity, Reliability, Loyalty, Creating a favourable atmosphere

Reference: (Caluwé and Reitsma, 2010, p.35)

The basic competencies belong to six of the ten domains: showing resilience, analyzing, considering, facilitating, influencing and inspiring confidence. There are no basic competencies in the domains: enterprising, organizing, performing and managing. The frameworks and additional literature will be related to the items within the questionnaire. Observation and analysis from the framework of the ICMCI is linked to item 5.6; analytical. Analyzing is through de Caluwè and Reitsma (2010, p.35) recognized as basic competence, so this is a critical competency for a consultant. From the framework of the ICMCI the part relationships, communication and presentation is linked to item 5.8 ‗able to create a good atmosphere‘. De Caluwè and Reitsma relate this to the basic competence ´inspiring confidence´ specified in ´creating a favorable atmosphere´. The part personal development and focused on ‗focus and time management‘

28

is related to item 5.2 ‗good at planning‘. Planning is twice noticed as important intervention specific competence by de Caluwé and Reitsma (2010, p.35). Even as result-oriented, which is also seen as important in the expert role. The commercial aspects within the ICMCI framework can also be related to item 5.4 ‗Results oriented‘. Kubr (2002, p.785) argues that a consultant must have the ability to communicate, persuade and motivate. This can be related to item 5.7 ‗Persuade‘, item 5, 8 ‗Able to create a good atmosphere‘ and item 3.10 ‗good at coaching‘. De Caluwe and Reitsma (2010, p.35) noticed that a basic competence for a consultant having influence on the project or client with specific skills in communication, presentation and persuasion. Therefore, coaching is not recognized as basic competency, but as a competency important within the process approach and within the specific intervention: training, development and continuous learning and changing. For a consultant it is also important to have creative competencies. Kubr (2002, p.785) noticed this as ‗creative imagination: original thinking‘ and ‗entrepreneurial spirit‘. Entrepreneurship and creativity are also both recognized as important competencies for a consultant. So, these competencies are related to item 5.5 ‗Innovative‘. Kubr (2002, p.785) also argues that it is for a consultant essential to have intellectual and emotional maturity. Kubr (2002, p.785) describe this as; stability of behavior and action, independence in drawing unbiased conclusions, ability to withstand pressures, and live with frustrations and uncertainties ability to act with poise, in a calm and objective manner, self-control in all situations and flexibility and adaptability to changed conditions. This is summarized in item 5.1 ‗stress tolerance‘. De Caluwé and Reitsma (2010, p.35) noticed as basic competency ´showing resilience: flexibility‘ Related to item 5.13 ‗recycling solutions‘ Werr and Stjernberg (2003, p.891) argue that consultants began by gathering information and examples from the knowledge database when designing a proposal for a new project. In later phases of the project, inspiration for formulating meeting agendas or organizational solutions could also be obtained from previous cases. A senior consultant of Accenture mentioned that they reuse old proposals in quite a few cases. It was, however, repeatedly pointed out that documents from previous cases could seldom be reused without adaptation. Rather, they served as a point of departure or source of input in the process of creating a specific design or solution for a specific case (Werr and Stjernberg, p.891). Therefore, recycling solutions is not always negative; a main advantage is the level of detail and concreteness that previous cases can provide. Specifics such as the timing, resource requirements, detailed design of key meetings, and so on were often derived from previous cases (Werr and Stjernberg, 2003p. 892) It is important as consultant to get trust of your client. Important in the process of reassuring or involving clients is to ‗listen active‘. A consultant within the study of Sturdy (1999, p.398) also argued this ‗The key thing is to listen and to find out what their problem is, how they solve it and what their thinking is‘. Sturdy argues (1999, p.400) that resolving conflicts and persuasion is also central in the work of consultants. In the study of Sturdy appears that other researchers like Clark (1995), Huczynski (1996) and Whitley (1994) notice that persuasive practices or impression management is crucial for

29

consultants (Sturdy, 1999, p.400). Also, Fincham (1999, p.338) argues that in consultants‘ everyday dealing with clients, the ‗systems of persuasion‘ promote legitimizing images of their expertise and claims to knowledge. Also, de Caluwé and Reitsma (2010, p.35) notice persuasion as basic competence. So, this competency results in item 5.7 ‗Persuasive‘. According to Kubr (2002, p.67) clients are immune or even allergic to consultant‘ use of jargon, overselling, and unjustified high fees. These negative competences are in the questionnaire described as item 5.3 ‗Good at selling‘ and item 5.12 ‗good at using jargon‘. The consultant is viewed solely as an advisor, leaving responsibility for the critical examination of recommendations and the use of the advice with the client. The client pictures as in control, with the ability to hire and fire the consultant-something which, given the consultants‘ dependence on repeat business, place the consultant in a subordinate position in relation to the client. Trustful cooperation seems to be a successful factor which requires the consultant to understand and accommodate the client‘s professional, psychological, and social needs (Werr and Styhre, 2003, p.47). Following to this it seems important to be as consultant ‗able to create a good atmosphere‘ (item 5.8). Clients are often seen as a naïve victim of the consultant‘s rhetorical and impression management skills (Werr and Styhre, 2003, p.4). Agreeing to this are Clark and Salaman (1998) who explore management consultancy as a dramatic act. Impression management is a key feature of the work of management consultants as is the ways in which they present themselves and interact with clients (Wellington and Bryson, 2001, p.934). So, items which can be related to these views are item 5.3 ‗Good at selling‘, 5.11 ‗Good at being dominant‘ and 5.12 ‗Good at using jargon‘. How important are the following competencies for a consultant is questioned within the questionnaire. The items chosen within this construct are based on the existing literature, media, experience and knowledge of the profession. 1. Stress tolerance 2. Good at planning 3. Good at selling 4. Results oriented 5. Innovative 6. Analytical 7. Persuasive 8. Able to create a good atmosphere 9. Good at taking decisions 10. Good at coaching 11. Good at being dominant 12. Good at using jargon 13. Good at recycling solutions 14. Good at avoiding accountability for bad advice

30

15. Good at getting people fired 2.6 Personal characteristics Within the following part the construct ‗personal characteristics‘ will be explained. The literature which is applicable to personal characteristics of consultants will be discussed. And the literature will be related to the chosen items within this construct. At the end you can find a list with the chosen items. As for any profession, there is not only one perfect model, but there are certain characteristics that affect the consultant‘s change of success and personal job satisfaction. Particular importance is attached to analytical and problem-solving abilities, as well as to competence in the behavioral area, in communicating and working with people, and in helping others to understand the need for change and how to implement it (Kubr, 2002, p.781). Kubr (2002, p.785) identifies qualities of a consultant; 1) Intellectual ability. -

Ability to learn quickly and easily

-

Ability to observe, gather, select and evaluate facts

-

Good judgment

-

Inductive and deductive reasoning

-

Ability to synthesize and generalize

-

Creative imagination: original thinking

2) Ability to understand people and work with them -

Respect for other people: tolerance

-

Ability to anticipate and evaluate human reactions

-

Easy human contacts

-

Ability to gain trust and respect

-

Courtesy and good manners

3) Ability to communicate, persuade and motivate -

Ability to listen

-

Facility in oral and written communication

-

Ability to share knowledge, teach and train people

-

Ability to persuade and motivate

4) Intellectual and emotional maturity -

Stability of behavior and action

-

Independence in drawing unbiased conclusions

-

Ability to withstand pressures, and live with frustrations and

-

Uncertainties ability to act with poise, in a calm and objective manner

-

Self-control in all situations

-

Flexibility and adaptability to changed conditions

31

5) Personal drive and initiative -

Right degree of self-confidence

-

Healthy ambition

-

Entrepreneurial spirit

-

Courage, initiative and perseverance in action

6) Ethics and integrity -

Genuine desire to help others

-

Extreme honesty

-

Ability to recognize the limitations of one‘s competence

-

Ability to admit mistakes and learn from failure

7) Physical and mental health -

Ability to accept the specific working and living conditions of management consultants.

The ability to learn quickly and easily and the ability to observe, gather, select and evaluate facts are abilities which are of importance within the personal characteristics of consultants. These abilities are given in item 6.2 ‗Is curious‘, item 6.11 ‗Likes variety in his/her work, 6.12 ‗Likes challenges and 6.15 ‗Is intelligent‘. Good judgment and using inductive and deductive reasoning and the ability to admit mistakes and learn from failure is related to item 6.9 ‗Is reflective‘. To be reflective you must also be able to recognize limitations and admit mistakes and learn from failures. Therefore, as consultant you need ‗backbone‘ (item 6.7). To have backbone and to be reflective it is important relate to the qualities of a consultant according to Kubr to have self-control and selfconfidence in the right degree. Item 6.6 ‗is motivated to improve the life of others is related to the quality ‗Genuine desire to help others‘. In the study of Werr and Stjernberg (2003, p. 892) consultants see their own and their colleagues‘ experience as the most important source of knowledge in designing and carrying out consulting projects. Thus, given in item 6.8 ‗brings in experience from outside‘ judge consultants as important. Werr and Stjernberg, (2003, p.894) mention that through direct involvement in projects and through formal and informal arenas experiential knowledge generated in the various ongoing projects can be shared. Experience was the central source of consultants‘ knowledge on how to design, and carry out a consulting project. The main role of experience was in the design of the projects, which required the ‗translation‘ articulate knowledge in terms of old cases and methods and tools to fit the specific situation that the consultant was currently working in (Werr and Stjernberg, p.895). There are often negative conversations about the compensations of consultants. As in the questionnaire stated ‗consultants are motivated by money‘ (item 6.10) and often send high bills and ‗likes to overcharge‘ (item 6.13). According to Kubr (2002, p.792) the consultancy profession use like other professions factors to measure which compensation is appropriate. For example, seniority,

32

profitability of firm, personal billing, personal selling, client satisfaction, training and development of consultants (Kubr, 2002, p. 795). Within the questionnaire the respondents are asked ´To what extent does a good consultant have the following personality characteristics? ´ Items within this construct are developed related to existing literature and knowledge from the profession: 1. Is a workaholic 2. Is curious 3. Is a number cruncher/likes figures 4. Is superficial 5. Is manipulative 6. Is motivated to improve the life of others 7. Has backbone 8. Brings in experience from outside 9. Is reflective 10. Is motivated by money 11. Likes variety in his/her work 12. Likes challenges 13. Likes overcharging clients 14. Blows high from the tower 15. Is intelligent.

2.7 Effectiveness The last part of the literature describes the last construct of the questionnaire, namely the effectiveness of consultants. The literature related to this construct and the items will be discussed. In the end you can find a list with the items chosen in the questionnaire. Finally, consultants and the work they deliver should show any result or be effective in some way. On which aspects judge the public the effectiveness of consultants? In the literature Kubr (2002, p.10) argues that consultants are used for five generic purposes, namely: 1. Achieving organizational purposes and objectives 2. Solving management and business problems 3. Identifying and seizing new opportunities 4. Enhancing learning 5. Implementing changes Performance seems to be essential in the work of consultants, because often their ideas and techniques play a central role in creating the organization in such a way to control, change and improve- and at the same time, reinforcing a positive identity (Werr and Styhre, 2003, p.48). Appelbaum and Steed(2005, p.76) describe that ‗it is typically expected that the consultants are accountable for

33

creating the best possible solutions and tools, while the clients are accountable for using those solutions and tools to produce the improved results‘. These points can be related to item 7.1 ‗ Helping organizations to grow‘, 7.2 ‗Improving financial performance of organizations, 7.4 ‗Helping with implementation of advice‘ and 7.5 ‗Realizing changes of behavior of people in the organization‘. Within the research of de Caluwé and Stoppelenburg (2004, p.4) they describe approaches to measure effectiveness. One of these is the performance indicators for consultants according to Philips (2000)

FIGURE 7: Performance indicators for consultants Type of data

Description

Satisfaction/reaction

Measures the satisfaction/reaction directly involved in the consulting intervention Measures the actual learning taking place for those individuals who must implement or support the process Measures the success of implementation and the utilization of the consulting intervention solution Measures the change in the business impact measures directly related to the consulting intervention Measures the actual cost versus benefits of the consulting intervention Measures important intangible benefits not utilized in the benefit-cost formula (knowledge base, job satisfaction, work climate, co-operation, customer complaints, decisiveness etc.)

Learning

Implementation/application

Business Impact

ROI Intangible benefits

'Reference: (Philips, 2000) According to Philips (2000) implementation is an important aspect (item 7.5). The items 7.1 ‗Helping organizations to grow‘ and 7.6 ‗Realizing changes of behavior of people in the organization‘ are indicators where is a relation to the satisfaction/reaction, learning and business impact indicators developed by Philips (2000). Kipping and Engwal (2002, p.205) argue that quantifiable results must be separated from the results and effectiveness of consultants: ‗The demand for their advice may thus be decoupled from ‗measurable‘ impact‘. The use of consultants can also be seen as a direct way to improve profitability through a variety of techniques (Poulfelt and Payne, 1994, p.421). Philips (2000) describes the quantifiable results as the ROI; Philips (2000) indicates here that there is a distinction between the different areas where consultants can be effective. Earlier mentioned in the literature section is that every client and project requires other goals, so they will judge the ‗effectiveness‘ of consultants on different aspects. For example, de Caluwé and Stoppelenburg (2004, p.4) describe success and

34

effectiveness criteria which were found in a study by Gable (1996). Gable constructed a measurement model with three main areas of assessment: 1. the consultant's Recommendations 2. The client learning and understanding and 3. The consultants performance. Philips (2000) identified the intangible benefits which can be related to item 7.4 ‗Fulfilling managers‘ spiritual needs‘. According to Casey (2004, p.61) there are nowadays trends called ‗New Age‘ explorations like various experiential activities in spirituality, soul-seeking and meditation. For example IBM and Deloitte support and encourage staff participation in various programs of ‗spirituality at work‘ (Casey, 2004, p.61). This lead to item 7.4 ‗Fulfilling managers spiritual needs.‘ De Caluwé and Stoppelenburg (2004, p.9) constructed an overview with effectiveness criteria which are important for management consultants in general according to principals, consultants and other persons involved.

FIGURE 8 Order of importance of effectiveness criteria (in general) Rank

Criterion

1

Objectives achieved

2

Involvement in assignment

3

Frequent communication

4

Solution found

5

Expertise of consultant

6

Closer to decision point

7

Learning by the client system

8

Participation by the client system

9

Energy, creativity, out-of-the-box-thinking

10

Budget frame followed

11

Time frame followed

12

Cooperation improved

13

Approached developed while working

14

Concrete directives

15

Equivalence of principal and consultant

16

Working more efficiently

17

Tasks set in advance

18

Required sources and means

19

Used specific methods.

Reference: (de Caluwé and Stoppelenburg, 2004, p. 9)

The effectiveness criteria identified and researched by de Caluwé and Stoppelenburg (2004, p.9) are more detailed than the items chosen in the questionnaire. Therefore, some of the criteria are part of or

35

can be related to items used in the questionnaire. In essence it is important what the assignment is about and if the client is satisfied with the results. Here you can find a lot of variety. De Caluwé and Stoppelenburg (2004, p.7) also mention that while you measuring the quality you will get different answers like‘ the consultants did exactly what I asked them to do and I am not satisfied with

that, because I had expected more of their own input." The other principal can say: "The consultants put in too much of their own ideas and I don't find that is acceptable". We use these lines to refer to the fact that quality only can be measured trough the (very subjective) expectations of the principal/client. What one thinks of as important, can be very different or even the opposite for another client. There also different types of quality according to de Caluwé and Stoppelenburg (2004, p.7) one client gives more importance to the content and the results, another gives more importance on costs and time path, again another can give importance to the process. A client can also argue that the consultant was effective in some aspects and ineffective in other aspects. Within the questionnaire will be focused on limited effectiveness criteria, because the respondents are the public and perhaps relatively unfamiliar with all those detailed effectiveness criteria. So, the respondents will be asked to what extent consultants are effective within the following items which are developed according to the literature and based on experience: 1. Helping organizations to grow 2. Improving financial performance of organizations 3. Helping with downsizing organizations 4. Fulfilling managers´ spiritual needs 5. Helping with implementation of advice 6. Realizing changes of behavior of people in the organization

36

3. Methods In this section will be discussed why there is chosen for the subject of this research, what the research philosophy is and which research method will be used. First, I will do a literature study. The aim of this study is to gather information about consultants, the consultancy industry and to see in which ways research has been done to the image of consultants. The first part is focused on developing a wider view and gathering knowledge within the existing literature about the subject. There will be secondary literature used, the book of Saunders and Lewis (2009, p.69). The literature about the image of consultants in the public is limited, so this automatically explains the reason for this research. This limitation can also become difficult; because the level of knowledge is limited I can‘t use a lot of literature and will not be able to relate findings within this research to earlier findings. Thus, I really must to find results and data all by myself. This research can be described as descriptive research. According to Saunders and Lewis (2009, p.140) this is a valuable way to portray an accurate profile of persons, events or situations. The survey strategy is chosen to gather data. Which is mostly used to answer questions like who, what, where, how much and how many questions. This will result in a fit with the purpose of descriptive research according to Saunders and Lewis (2009, p.144). The chosen research strategy is often related to the deductive approach (Saunders and Lewis, 2009, p.144). Deduction emphasizes; 1. Moving from theory to data, 2. Collection of data, 3. Application of controls to ensure validity of data, 4. Operationalization of concepts to ensure clarity of definition, 5. Highly structured approach, 6. Necessity to select samples of sufficient size in order to generalize conclusions. All these points seem important to me within this research. There is limited budget available, but there is need for a large population. The survey strategy will be used, because this is a way of collecting a large amount of data from a sizeable population in a highly economical way (Saunders and Lewis, 2009, p.144). Through questionnaires the data will be gathered. An advantage here is that I can analyze the data fast, through the standardized questions which will be used. A sample will be used, because it is financially not realizable to investigate the whole public. Sampling is appropriate to generate findings that are representative for the whole population at a lower cost than collecting data for the whole population (Saunders and Lewis, 2009, p.144). This study will be a cross-sectional study, because the research will be of a particular phenomenon at a particular time (Saunders and Lewis, p.155). Doing the research in a limited time frame is a constraint of the research. A mono-method is chosen; which is a single quantitative data collection technique with quantitative data analysis procedures (Saunders and Lewis, 2009, p.151). In the research a self-administered questionnaire will be developed. To require respondents filling in the questionnaire there will be two methods used. Firs, my colleague Dany van den Berg, prof. Dr. de Caluwé and I will send via e-mail to our own network the request to fill in the questionnaire. According to Saunders and Lewis (2009, p.362) this is called internet mediated; the

37

respondents are contacted by email and requested to fill in the questionnaire. In this way a broad public will be approached, from the age of 16 up to 65 and from professionals to people with little or no education or job experiences. To make the sample more reliable and to be sure to reach the whole public, there will also be questionnaires handed out in the public, on the street and in the train. Saunders and Lewis (2009, p.364) call this delivery and collection questionnaires. These methods are chosen, because in a fast, economical way data can be gathered from a widespread public. And we are sure that the right persons respond. The sample size will be 1000 respondents. Where the questionnaires will be handed out will be randomly selected. Randomly choosing on the map the locations where to go in the Netherlands. To gather the data on these two methods the external validity will increase, which finally will make the results more reliable. Therefore, it can become difficult to really require a representative sample and a good response rate. The purpose of the questionnaire is to gather opinion variables; how respondents feel about something or what they think or believe is true or false (Saunders and Lewis, 2009, p.368). To gather information about the respondents there will also be a part in the questionnaire which asks to attribute variables, so this is about the respondents characteristics: age, gender, education and occupation. It is important that the items within questionnaire cover the research question. Therefore the subjects and questions must be well considered. Then the questionnaire must assess validity. Internal validity will be satisfied when the respondent understand the question as it was intended. Thus, questions must be clear and plausible formulated. In the questionnaire there will be first two open questions to gather data from the respondent without any influence beforehand. Here, you can judge if someone is familiar with the subject. A disadvantage of open questions is that it is time consuming to code. After that, a section will follow concerning questions about the characteristics of the respondents. Afterwards can be judged, whether the sample is representative, because there are questions posed like living area, age, work, education etc. Subsequently, a conclusion can also be drawn whether there are enough respondents from different environments. The next sections consist of closed questions with a Likert scale rating. Overall, I think it is difficult to be 100% internal valid, because you never know if the respondents interpret the questions as meant. The goal is to get data as internal valid as possible, to achieve the right results. To test the questions and the internal validity of the questionnaire there will be a pilot testing. The respondent will fill the questionnaire and share their thoughts during the filling in. This will result in insights for the researcher how the respondents interpret the questions and where there are difficulties. The questionnaire need to have some layout requirements like; not too long, good paper, warm pastel tints and easy to read (Saunders and Lewis, 2009, p.391). In appendix 1 is the finally used questionnaire after pilot testing. When the questionnaire will be distributed it is important to send a covering letter with it; to tell the respondents the goal of the survey and convince them to participate. The research by Dillman (2007) resulted that a covering letter will increase the response rate. The covering letter of the questionnaire can also be found in appendix 1. A week after the first email there will be a follow-up

38

with a thank for all early respondents and as reminder for non-respondents. After three weeks there will be a second follow up for people who didn‘t participate. Then if necessary there will be a third follow up, if the respondent rate is too low. This will take 4 till 6 weeks. Overall, if we look to the research ‗onion‘ (figure 9) of Saunders and Thornhill (2009, p. 108) the path which will be followed in this research is in line with the onion.

FIGURE 9 Research onion

39

4. Results Within the fourth chapter the results will be explained. This chapter exists of eight parts. The first seven parts will exemplify the results gathered within the questionnaire. The first construct will be about the open questions. The second construct is about the personal characteristics of the respondents. The third construct is about advice, the fourth one about roles, the fifth one about competences, the sixth one about personal characteristics and the seventh one about effectiveness. In the last part the results of the SPSS results and analysis will be presented in a summarized version. 4.1 Construct 1 Within the first construct the question is ‗What comes to mind thinking of a consultant? The goal of this question is to get insight in the perception of the public about consultants. The view of the public is defined in separated categories: advice, expert, extern, help, expensive, general, positive general, negative general. In the table below (Table 1) you can find the categories, the percentage of respondents which gave an answer categorized to that category and examples of answers given. Table 1: ‘First thoughts respondents mentioning a consultant’

Category 1. No idea 2. Advisor or advice

Percentage %

Example

7% 43% ‗General, generalize, adviser‘, ‗advisor, sparring partner‘, ‗a consultant gives specialized advice to management of individuals‘

3. Expert

5.5% ‗Professional‘, ‗someone with knowledge‘

4. Extern

7% ‗Purchase of knowledge‘, ‗external help‘

5. Help

10.5% ‗Counselor‘, ‗Officer‘, ‗Troubleshooter‘, ‗Help by change‘

6. Expensive

10% ‗High costs‘, ‗Expensive adviser‘.

7. General description

12% ‗Consult‘, ‗Man‘, ‗Finance‘.

8. Positive general

2% ‗Improvement‘, ‗Inspired person with knowledge and good listening‘.

9. Negative general

4% ‗Negative businessman who knows everything better‘, ‗a person with a mask‘.

The second question is ‗What is your experience with consultants?‘ The answers given to this question are also divided in categories: none, positive, negative, variable, general and consultant. In table 2 the categories, the percentage of answers and examples of answers are given.

40

Table 2. Experience

Category

Percentage %

Example

1. No experience

20%

2. Positive experience

22% ‗Positive experience‘, ‗good collaboration‘.

3. Negative experience

8% ‗They don‘t do their job seriously, you have to sit behind them‘, ‗and they often just talk around‘.

4. Variable experience

12% ‗Sometimes good and sometimes bad‘, ‗very variable from freaks to helping outsiders‘.

5. No specific category:

28%

just description of experiences 6. No specific category:

9%

Consultants in their profession

The answers given on the first two questions and more details of table 1 and table 2 are in appendix 2. It must be mentioned that some answers can be categorized in different sections, but there is chosen to divide them only in one category. Within the second construct there was a closed question related to the experience of the respondents with the public. The results are presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Experience 1. How much experience do you have with consultants? Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer none once sometimes frequent continue

Percentage 34% 6% 31% 13% 17%

This is not in one line with the open question, 20% of the respondents answered there that they have no experience with consultants. Perhaps respondents who worked once or twice with a consultant, or have seen a consultant working in their company, but they didn‘t hire the consultant or work all the time within the project with the consultant answered here that they have no experience with consultants.

41

4.2 Construct 2 In the end the sample size of the questionnaire is 400 respondents. Beforehand the goal was to require 1000 respondents. This goal was to optimistic, because a lot of respondents didn‘t fill in the questionnaire online. Also, a lot of respondents filled in the questionnaire just for a part or only read the introduction. Those people aren‘t interested or didn‘t understand the subject of the questionnaire. In the train and on the street it was very difficult to get respondents motivated. Most of the time they aren‘t interested, in a hurry or just don‘t know what ‗a consultant‘ is. Within this section and looking at the related items you can judge, if the sample was representative and the results reliable. The goal beforehand was to reach the ‗Dutch citizen‘, ‗the public ‗and ‗the Dutch society‘. 57% of the respondents are men and 43% are women, which is a reliable distribution. Following the characteristics of the respondents with the tables. The first table is table 4 here are the statistics of the age of the respondents. In table 5you can find the sector where the respondents are active. In table 6 you can find at which level the respondent is active in his or her organization. In table 7 you can find the level of education of the respondents. In table 8 you can see the size of the organization where the respondents are active and conclude there is a reliable distribution.

Table 4: age of the respondents. Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Answer 16-20 year 21-30 year 31-40 year 41-50 year 51-60 year 61-70 year 71 year and older

Percentage 7% 25% 18% 23% 15% 12% 1%

It became clear that the age of the respondents is between 16 and 72 years. More details about the age distribution are in the appendices.

Table 5: working sector of the respondents. Code 1 2 3 4 5 6

Answer Industry Business services Government Non profit Jobless/ retirement Additional

Percentage 14% 38% 10% 8% 10% 20%

Most of the respondents are active in the sector business services. The distribution is overall satisfying.

42

Table 6: Working level of the respondents Code 1 2 3 4

Answer Operational level Mid management Top management Not applicable

Percentage 31% 31% 11% 26%

The least respondents are active at top management. Normally this percentage is also lower than people who are active at operational level. Overall, the distribution between the working levels is satisfying.

Table 7: Education of the respondents Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Secondary school Secondary Vocational (MBO) High Vocational (HBO) Scientific Education (WO) (University) Other

Percentage 6% 14% 44% 34% 3%

The educational level of the respondents is not representative, because the most of the respondents are higher educated. A possible explanation for the high percentage of highly educated respondents is the living area of the respondents; here the educational level is higher than in other parts of the country. For example, the citizens of Noord-Holland and Utrecht are more often high educated than the citizens of Zeeland (FIGURE 10).

43

FIGURE 10: Labor force with HBO or WO education.

Table 8: Size of the organization of the respondents.

Code 1 2 3 4

Answer Small organization (fewer than50 employees) Medium organization (50- 1.000 employees) Large organization (more than 1.000 employees) Not applicable

Percentage 23% 29% 29% 19%

The respondents are active in all kind of organizations, this distribution is very well. Beforehand is decided that it is necessary to require respondents distributed in the Netherlands, from cities to villages, from the Randstad to not-Randstand, and every province must be provided. From the results it became clear that the most respondents are living in Amsterdam, Culemborg, Utrecht and Den Haag. A possible explanation of the living areas of the respondents is that the most people are from personal networks and they are living in the cities mentioned above. An extra explanation is the population density (FIGURE 11). The distribution is relatively reliable, because the respondents are from large cities, to smaller cities and villages.

44

FIGURE 11: Population density in the Netherlands

Overall, can be concluded that the sample size is reliable. The age, working sectors and working levels are all well represented. The educational level is not well distributed as earlier explained. There are also a high percentage of respondents from specific cities or villages, but this is not a problem. The distribution is relatively reliable, because the respondents are from large cities, to smaller cities and villages. Thus, the sample size is representative. 4.3 Construct 3 Construct 3,4,5,6 and 7are analyzed with SPSS. To make clear what seems important/ unimportant, effective/ineffective, relevant/ irrelevant I made two categories. The first category is from code 1 to 3, which states that for example such a role is not relevant for a consultant and category 4 to 5 is relevant. Thus, through this distinction you can develop a fast insight in the results and make general conclusions. The tables with the results analyzed in SPSS are in the appendixes. The results of all the items are also compared to the demographics/ characteristics of the respondents. Under each table the most remarkable results are discussed. Results which are not remarkable are not discussed. For example, if all educational levels judge the role as ‗legitimizer‘ as important this is not mentioned. Whether as 80% of the men judge the role as ‗networker‘ as important and 30 % of the women, this will be discussed. Within this section only the results of the construct advice will be discussed.

45

Advice

3.1 Provide clients with help Code 1 2 3

Answer Not important

Percentage

4 5

0% 4% 9% 32%

Very important

54%

‗Provide clients with help‘ is one of the four components which are rated as highest through 86% of the respondents with a relevance level of 4 or 5. Regardless the characteristics of the respondents they all rate this component as highly important. Mean: 4, 33

3.2 Analyze problem for clients. Code Answer Percentage 1 Not important 1% 2 3% 3 7% 4 25% 5 Very important 64% ‗Analyze problems for clients‘ is 1 of the 4 advice components which is rated as highest through the public. Therefore, 89% of the respondents see it as important to very important even in every demography. Mean: 4, 43

3.3 Give advice to client. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not important

Very important

Percentage 0% 2% 6% 25% 67%

‗Give advice to client‘ is 1 of the 4 advice items which is rated as highest through 92% of the respondents with a score of 4 or 5, which is in every demographic. Mean: 4, 57

46

3.4 Be independent from client. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not important

Percentage 3% 10% 23% 33% 31%

Very important

‗Be independent from client‘ shows variety among the answers. Respondents with continuous experience with consultants see this as important for 71%. Respondents with secondary school education judge this item as not important. The other educational levels judge this item as important; therefore only 57% of University educated respondents see this as important. Thus, for respondents from secondary school this activity is not important but, for respondents from MBO, HBO and WO level it is important. ‗Be independent from client‘ is seen as important throughout all the levels of the organization, but the level of importance decreases, if the level in the organization increases. Mean: 3, 75

3.5 Base activities on expertise methods and tools. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not important

Percentage 1% 6% 16% 45% 33%

Very important

‗Base activities on expertise methods and tools‘ is 1 of the 4 advice component which is judged as highest, through 88% of the respondents. Regardless of the demographic characteristics of the respondents. Mean: 4, 01

3.6 Implements solutions for/with client. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not important

Very important

Percentage 2% 7% 24% 41% 26%

The majority of the respondents see this activity as important up to very important (67%). Within the demographics there are a lot of different distributions. Respondents with ‗once‘ and ‗continual‘

47

experience with consultants doesn‘t see the importance in the activity. Within the demography education ‗implement solutions for/with client‘ is seen as important, but the higher the education level, the lower the level of importance. Mean: 3, 82 3.7 Intervening in the client’s organization. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not important

Percentage 8% 18% 32% 29% 13%

Very important

‗Intervening in the organization‘ is not very important to the most respondents. The respondents with continue experience with consultants score the highest at the level of unimportance. Respondents who are active at operational level and mid management see this activity as unimportant; therefore respondents who are active at top management think it is important. Mean: 3, 21

3.8 Solve strategic issues. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not important

Percentage 2% 7% 25% 41% 25%

Very important

The majority of the respondents judge this activity as important (66%). The ratings are not very high in every demography, overall every demography see this activity as important. Mean: 3, 76

3.9 Works in close collaboration with client. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not important

Very important

Percentage 2% 6% 20% 37% 35%

48

From all the respondents, 72% answers that ‗working in close collaboration with client‘ is an important to very important activity. Mean: 3, 97

3.10 Seize new (market) opportunities for clients. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not important

Percentage 4% 14% 30% 35% 17%

Very important

‗Seize new market opportunities‘ is an activity which has distributed answers. Respondents with no or continual experience asses this activity as important and respondents with once, sometimes and frequent experience judge this activity as unimportant. Remarkable is that a lot of respondents active on operational level and top management see this activity as important, therefore respondents active at middle management see it as unimportant. Respondents active in small organizations judge this as important for 52% and in middle sized organizations as unimportant. Therefore respondents active in large organizations judge this activity as important. ‗Seize new (market) opportunities is judged as important through secondary educated, MBO/HBO as important, but this decreases when the level of education increases. Respondents from WO level argue this activity is unimportant. Mean: 3, 43

3.11 Advise about short term problems. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not important

Important

Percentage 6% 11% 32% 36% 15%

There is variety among the answers; 17% see no relevance and 51% see relevance in this activity. So, it is difficult to make a conclusion if this activity is important or not important. Within every demography the group of respondent‘s answers with important or unimportant is often 50/50. Respondents active at operational level and middle management see this activity as important; therefore respondents active in top management see it as unimportant. Respondents with secondary school, MBO and HBO education see it as important. Respondents who are WO educated judge this activity as unimportant.

49

Mean: 3, 44

3.12 Follow established procedures. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not important

Percentage 12% 23% 34% 22% 9%

Very important

35% of the respondents experience this activity as ‗unimportant‘ for a consultant and 31% judge this activity as important to very important. Respondents with frequent and continue experience with consultants experience this activity as unimportant, respondents with none or once experience with consultants see more importance in this activity. MBO educated respondents see this activity as important, HBO and WO educated respondents do not. Mean: 2, 95 Respondents within the construct advice review the activities 3.1 ‗Provide clients with help‘ (mean: 4, 33 and 86% of the respondents give a score of 4 or 5), 3.2 ‗Analyze problem for client‘ (mean: 4, 43 and 89% judge it as important to very important activity) and 3.3 ‗Give advice to client‘ (mean: 4, 57 and 92% of the respondents judge it as important to very important) are seen as most important for a consultant.

4.4 Construct 4 Within the following part the results and analysis of the construct ‗Roles‘ will be discussed. Roles 4.1 Extra pair of hands: help management do things management does not have time for. . Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not relevant

Percentage

Very relevant

24% 21% 28% 22% 6%

Relatively uniform distribution. So, ‗extra pair of hands‘ is not per definition an important role for a consultant. In the demographics this role is unimportant. It was remarkable that the higher the level in the organization where respondents are active, the higher they judge this role as irrelevant. The respondents with WO education experience this role as most unimportant (81%).

50

Mean: 2, 68

4.2 Legitimizer: provide support for decisions Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not relevant

Percentage 6% 18% 28% 37% 11%

Very relevant

The majority of the respondents see the role as legitimizer as relevant to very relevant. When I take a closer look at the demographics, it became clear that the respondents from different groups have different visions. Respondents with none (63%), once (50%) or limited experience (61%) see the role as irrelevant. Respondents with frequent (60%) and continuous experience (74%) see the role as relevant. Respondents active at operational (52%) and middle management (52%) level judge the role as relevant. The majority of respondents at top management level see the role as not relevant (67%). Respondents with MBO (55%) or WO education (57%) judge the role as not relevant. Respondents with secondary school (60%) and HBO education (53%) judge the role as relevant. Respondents active in small (58%) to middle sized organizations (60%) see the role as not relevant and respondents active in large organizations as relevant (63%). Concluding can be mentioned that respondents with various demographics see the role as legitimizer relevant as well as not relevant. Mean: 3, 29

4.3 Inspirator: deliverer of new ideas. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not relevant

Very relevant

Percentage 1% 5% 17% 49% 28%

The role of ‗inspirator‘ is judged as an important role for a consultant through 77% of the respondents who answered with a 4 or 5. Remarkable is low importance respondents from top management level give to this role (67%) in comparison with operational (78%) and middle management level (81%). The role as inspirator is important: independent of the size of the organization where respondents are active; therefore respondents active in large organizations (89%) are unanimously agreeing that the role is relevant. Mean: 3, 98

51

4.4 Devil’s advocate: be a critical outsider. Code

Answer

1

Not relevant

Percentage 4%

2

8%

3

21%

4

36%

5

Very relevant

31%

‗Devil‘s advocate‘ is seen by the majority of the respondents as relevant (67%). Respondents with sometimes (73%) frequent (60%) and continue experience (83%) with consultants give relevance to the role as critical outsider. 76% of the respondents who are active at top management level think that this role is relevant. Respondents with HBO (75%) or WO education (73%) think this role is important. Lower educated respondents see a lower relevancy in the role (50/41%). So, there is a gap between lower and higher educated respondents. Mean: 3, 82 4.5 Hired gun: bring bad news that management doesn’t want to bring itself. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not relevant

Percentage 17% 25% 34% 16% 7%

Very relevant

The role as ‗hired gun‘ is according to the public not a relevant role for a consultant. Mean: 2, 68

4.6 Coach: teach individuals or teams to become better. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer not relevant

Very relevant

Percentage 6% 11% 25% 39% 19%

The role as coach is overall seen as important. Respondents active at operational (67%) and middle management level (52%) agree with this. Therefore, respondents active at top management level (57%) see the role as coach as not relevant. Scores are not really convincing within the different

52

educational levels, especially according to WO educated (51%) respondents there is not a high importance. Mean: 3, 54

4.7 Expert: someone who knows what should be done. Code Answer Percentage 1 Not relevant 1% 2 5% 3 17% 4 49% 5 Very relevant 28% The role as expert is through the majority of respondents answered with a 4 or 5(77%), thus relevant. Mean: 3, 98

4.8 Networker: connector to other organizations. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not relevant

Percentage 8% 18% 30% 37% 7%

Very relevant

The role of ‗networker‘ is seen as relevant, but not very relevant and more than 26% see the role as not relevant. Respondents with none (57%), once (83%), sometimes (58%) and frequent experience (60%) think that the role as networker is ‗not relevant‘. Respondents with continue experience (66%) see the role as relevant. Remarkable is that the most respondents active at top management level (67%) see the role as not important. Respondents with secondary school (60%) argue the role as relevant. The other education levels experience the role as networker as not relevant (66/51/61%). Respondents active in small (58%) and middle sized organizations (65%) see the role as networker as not relevant and respondents active in large organizations as relevant (53%). Mean: 3, 17

4.9 Team builder: builder of teams and cooperation. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not relevant

Very relevant

Percentage 9% 18% 30% 33% 9%

53

The role as team builder has no convincing relevant or not relevant role for a consultant according to the respondents. The majority within the demography ‗experience‘ see the role as unimportant (52/67/ 63/48/57%). Respondents active at middle (67%) and top management level (57%) experience the role as not relevant. Respondents active at operational level experience the role as team builder as ‗relevant‘ (52%). Men experience the role as not relevant (62%) and women as relevant (51%). Mean: 3, 12

4.10 Code 1 2 3 4 5

Process advisor: facilitates the process. Answer Not relevant

Percentage 5% 11% 25% 42% 17%

Very relevant

The role as process advisor is judged through the respondents as 1 of the 4 most important roles for a consultant. The respondents with none (51%) or once experience (67%) with consultants see the role as ‗not relevant‘. Respondents with sometimes (67%) frequent (56%) and continue experience (67%) see the role as relevant. Respondents active at operational (64%) and middle management level (55%) experience the role as most relevant even as in all sizes of organizations. Respondents working at top management jobs see the role as process advisor as unimportant (52%). Mean: 3, 55

4.11 Code 1 2 3 4 5

Friendly copilot: a more experienced sparring partner. Answer Not relevant

Very relevant

Percentage 3% 13% 28% 43% 14%

The role as copilot is for 57% of the respondents relevant or very relevant. 77% of the respondents with continuous experience with consultants judge the role as copilot as important, so do the respondents with sometimes (63%) and frequent experience (52%). Respondents with none experience (54%) or just once experience (75%) see no relevancy in the role. Secondary school (60%) and MBO educated respondents (62%) see the role as copilot as not relevant, therefore HBO (66%) and WO educated respondents (56%) see the role as relevant. Respondents from every level in the organization judge the role as relevant (61/52/57%). Respondents active in small organizations don‘t judge the role with a majority relevant or not relevant and the majority of the respondent‘s active in middle sized

54

(58%) and large organizations (63%) judge the role as not relevant. Men experience the role as relevant (61%) and women as not relevant (51%) Mean: 3,55

4.12 Code 1 2 3 4 5

Charlatan: seller of hot air Answer Not relevant

Percentage 57% 20% 14% 8% 1%

very relevant

The majority of the respondents judge the role as charlatan as not relevant. Almost in every demographic section more than 80% of the respondents see the role as charlatan as unimportant. Mean: 1, 76

Concluding, there are three most important roles and one role is the least important according to the respondents. The most important roles are; The role as 4.3 ‗ Inspirator; deliverer of new ideas‘ (mean: 3,98 and 77% of the respondents have given a score 4 or 5), role 4.7 ‗Expert; someone who knows what should be done‘ (mean: 3,98 and 77% of the respondents have given a score 4 of 5) and role 4.4 ‗Devil‘s advocate; a critical outsider‘ (mean: 3,82 and 67% of the respondents have given a score of 4 or 5). The least important role is the role as 4.12 ‗Charlatan: seller of hot air‘ (mean: 1,76 and 77% of the respondents have given a score of 1 or 2).

4.5 Construct 5 Within the following part the construct competences will be analyzed. All the items with the corresponding tables and the most remarkable results will be discussed. Competences 5.1 Stress tolerance. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not important

Very important

Percentage 1% 4% 11% 51% 33%

55

‗Stress tolerance‘ is 1 of the 4 advice items which is rated as highest through the respondents, in total through 84% of the respondents. Also, the respondents with different demographics judge this competence as important. Mean: 4, 08

5.2 Good at planning. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not important

Percentage 2% 3% 10% 54% 31%

Very important

Good at planning is 1 of the 4 advice items which is seen as most important through 85% of the respondents. Mean: 4,05

5.3 Good at selling. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not important

Percentage

Very important

8% 21% 28% 27% 17%

29% of the respondents are from meaning that this competence is not important and 44% as important. Within the demographics the results are distributed. Respondents with continue experience judge this competence as important (57%) and the others not (35/33/50/36%). Respondent‘s active in small (63%) and middle sized (56%) organizations experience the competence good at selling as unimportant. Respondents active in large organizations are from meaning that it is an important competence (53%). The majority of the respondents at operational level answers that good at selling is important (53%), at middle (60%) and top management (67%) respondents think it is unimportant. The majority of both men (51%) and women (64%) judge the role as unimportant. Mean: 3,24

56

5.4 Result oriented. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not important

Percentage 1% 1% 9% 38% 50%

Very important

Result oriented is 1 of the 4 advice items which is experienced as most important (88%). Mean: 4, 36

5.5 Innovative Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not important

Percentage 0% 5% 14% 45% 35%

Very important

‗Innovative‘ is seen as an important competence for a consultant (80%), as all respondents with different demographics. Mean: 4, 07

5.6 Analytical Code Answer 1 Not important 2 3 4 5 Very important

Percentage 1% 3% 7% 39% 49%

‗Analytical‘ is 1 of the 4 advice components which is answered by 78% of the respondents as important to very important, even as in every demographic section. Mean: 4, 34

57

5.7 Persuasive. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not important

Percentage 5% 9% 41% 32% 13%

Very important

Difficult to conclude, if this competence is important, because 41% of the respondents answered with code 3. Respondents with frequent experience (52%) think it is an important competence, the other respondents with none, sometimes and continuous experience judges it as unimportant. Respondents with secondary school education (60%) judge it as important, MBO (53%), HBO (57%) and WO educated (56%) as unimportant. Respondents active in small (56%) and middle sized organizations (69%) think persuasiveness is unimportant, but respondents active in large organizations (56%) think it is important. Within every level of the organization respondents experience persuasiveness as unimportant (56/53/67/51%). Both men and women experience persuasiveness as unimportant. Mean: 3, 29 5.8 Able to create a good atmosphere. Code Answer 1 Not important 2 3 4 5 Very important

Percentage 3% 10% 24% 43% 19%

This competence is seen by the majority of the respondents as important to very important (62%). Respondents with continue experience with consultants think this competence is important (92%) even as none (53%), sometimes (63%) and regular experience (60%). In the other demographics all respondents judge this competence as important. Mean: 3, 62

5.9 Good at taking decisions. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not important

Very important

Percentage 4% 17% 20% 41% 18%

58

Good at taking decisions is a competence which is experienced as important and not important. Overall, it is seen as important. Respondents with none (67%), once (75%) frequent (60%) and continuous experience (58%) argues that ‗good at taking decisions‘ is an important competence. Respondents who have sometimes experience (52%) see this competence as unimportant. Secondary school (80%), MBO (77%) and HBO (59%) judge this competence as important, but WO educated (46%) respondents do not. Thus, the higher the educational level, the lower the importance. The majority in every size of organizations judge this competence as important even as every level in the organization, except middle management (47%). Male respondents see this competence as 50/50% and women as important (72%). Mean:3,52

5.10 Good at coaching. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not important

Percentage 1% 9% 24% 39% 27%

Very important

66% of the respondents think that this competence is important for a consultant. This is also given in the results within every demography. Mean: 3, 82

5.11 Good at being dominant. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not important

Percentage 16% 34% 37% 8% 5%

Very important

Good at being dominant is according to the respondents not important. Mean: 2, 54 5.12 Good at using jargon. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not important

Very important

Percentage 16% 19% 37% 25% 4%

59

Only 29% of all respondents see importance in this competency. Within the demographic sections it became clear that this competence is not important. Mean: 2, 73

5.13 Good at recycling solutions. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not important

Percentage 3% 12% 35% 40% 8%

Very important

15% of the respondents judge this competence as not important and 48% as important. Respondents with continuous experience see it as important (66%) and the other respondents not or there is a 50/50 distribution. Respondents from all educational levels judge this competence as unimportant. Within the sizes of organizations it is 50/50 distributed even as at the levels in organizations. Women experience this competence as unimportant (56%) and men important (52%). Mean: 3, 36

5.14 Good at avoiding accountability by bad advice. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not important

Percentage

Very important

30% 22% 30% 12% 6%

Good at avoiding accountability by bad advice is not important according to the respondents in the table and in every demography. Mean: 2, 44 5.15 Good at getting people fired. Code Answer Percentage 1 Not important 2 3 4 5 Very important Good at getting people fired is according to the respondents totally not important.

43% 27% 22% 7% 1%

Mean: 1, 74

60

Concluding can be mentioned that the following items are the most important competencies according to the respondents; Item 5.1 ‗Stress tolerance‘ (mean 4:08, 84% answered important or very important) 5.4 ‗Result oriented‘ (mean: 4, 36, 88% have given the score 4 or 5), 5.6 ‗Analytical‘ (mean 4, 34, 78% of the respondents answered it is important to very important). The least important competency is 5.15 ‗Good at getting people fired‘ with a mean of 1,74 and 70% of the respondents have given a score of 1 or 2.

4.6 Construct 6 Within the following part the items of construct 6 ‗Personal characteristics‘ will be discussed. There will be a focus on the corresponding results, tables and outliers in the results.

Personal characteristics 6.1 Is a workaholic. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not relevant

Percentage 24% 14% 34% 22% 7%

Very relevant

The answers are distributed, but for the majority of the respondents being a workaholic is not a relevant personal characteristic. Within the different demographics the respondents experience the role as workaholic as not relevant. Mean: 2, 77

6.2 Is curious. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not relevant

Very relevant

Percentage 2% 7% 14% 47% 30%

Being curious is according to the respondents 1 of the 4 most important characteristics for a consultant. Remarkable is the total respondents with continuous experience which see this characteristic as important (97%). Overall, all the respondents within every demography experience this characteristic as important. Mean; 3, 96

61

6.3 Is a number cruncher/likes figures. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not relevant

Percentage 8% 19% 37% 30% 7%

Very relevant

According to the public the level of relevancy of this characteristic is distributed. From the demographics it appears that it is overall experienced as not relevant. Only secondary school educated respondents experience it as relevant (60%). Mean; 3, 12

6.4 Is superficial. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not relevant

Percentage 43% 27% 20% 7% 4%

Very relevant

Being superficial is experienced as not relevant (70%). Mean; 2, 05

6.5 Is manipulative. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not relevant

Very relevant

Percentage 37% 26% 22% 11% 5%

Being manipulative is a characteristic which is not relevant for a consultant according to the public (code 1 or 2 63%). Mean; 2, 24

62

6.6 Is motivated to improve the life of others. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not relevant

Percentage 33% 24% 26% 12% 5%

Very relevant

Respondents with once (67%) and sometimes experience (57%) with consultants experience this characteristic as not relevant. Respondents with none (56%) frequent (60%) and continue experience (56%) with consultant‘s judge it as a relevant characteristic. A little majority in the demographic size of the organization experience this characteristic as important (52/51/52%). The majority of the respondents at operational (52%) and top management level (52%) experience this characteristic as not relevant. At middle management (53%) respondents think it is a relevant characteristic. WO educated respondents experience it as irrelevant (59%). MBO educated respondents are in between and secondary school (80%) and HBO educated respondents (56%) experience it as relevant. Men think this characteristic is not relevant (53%) and women think it is relevant (51%). Mean: 2, 32

6.7 Has backbone. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not relevant

Percentage 2% 7% 20% 53% 19%

Very relevant

Having backbone is important for a consultant according to the respondents (72%). Especially respondents with continue experience see this characteristic as important (88%). Respondents active at top management level are not all convinced by this characteristic (57%). Therefore, especially respondents in large organizations (85%) experience this characteristic as important. Mean: 3, 83

6.8 Brings in experience from outside. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not relevant

Very relevant

Percentage 2% 4% 17% 48% 30%

63

Brings in experience from outside is for the majority of respondents relevant (78%), therefore it is seen as 1 of the 4 most important characteristics for a consultant. Especially respondents with continue experience see this as relevant characteristic (88%). Mean: 4, 03

6.9 Is reflective. Code Answer Percentage 1 Not relevant 2% 2 6% 3 18% 4 48% 5 Very relevant 27% Being reflective is through the majority of respondents seen as a relevant personal characteristic for a consultant (75%). This is 1 of the 4 most important characteristics. Especially respondents working at top management level (95%) are convinced by this characteristic. Mean: 3, 95

6.10 Is motivated by money. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not relevant

Percentage 34% 24% 26% 12% 5%

Very relevant

Motivated by money is through the majority (58%) of the respondent seen as not relevant, also in every demographic category. Mean: 2, 33

6.11 Likes variety in his/her work. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not relevant

Very relevant

Percentage 3% 4% 28% 41% 24%

Likes variety in his/her work is through 65% of the respondent seen as relevant to very relevant. Mean: 3, 79

64

6.12 Likes challenges. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not relevant

Percentage 2% 2% 14% 47% 35%

Very relevant

Likes challenges is according to 96% of the respondents relevant to very relevant as a personal characteristic for a consultant. So, this is 1 of the 4 most important characteristics for a consultant. Mean: 4, 11

6.13 Likes overcharging clients. Code Answer Percentage 1 Not relevant 2 3 4 5 Very relevant The majority of the respondents see this characteristic as not important (67%).

45% 22% 16% 13% 5%

Mean:2,14

6.14 Blows high from the tower. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not relevant

Percentage 54% 19% 16% 9% 3%

Very relevant

The majority of the respondents experience this characteristic as ‗not relevant‘, also in every demography. Mean: 1, 91

6.15 Is intelligent. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not relevant

Very relevant

Percentage 3% 2% 19% 46% 32%

65

Intelligence is seen as 1 of the 4 most important personal characteristics for a consultant according the public (78%). Mean: 4, 08

The three most important personal characteristics for a consultant are according to the public; 6.12 ‗Likes challenges‘ (Mean: 4, 11 and 82% rated with a score of 4 or 5). 6.15 ‗Is intelligent‘ (Mean: 4, 08 and 78% of the respondents have given a score of 4 or 5) and 6.8 ‗Brings in experience from outside‘ (Mean: 4, 03 and 78% of the respondents have given a score of 4 or 5). The personal characteristic which is least important according to the respondents is 6.14 ‗Blows high from the tower‘ (mean: 1,91 and 73% have given a score of 1 or 2). 4.7 Construct 7 Within the following part the last construct effectiveness will be discussed. The results, tables and outliers within the results will be discussed.

Effectiveness 7.1 Helping organizations to grow Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not effective

Percentage 1% 5% 15% 48% 32%

Very effective

Helping organizations to grow is an activity in which consultants are the most effective within this construct according to the respondents (80%). Mean: 4, 04

7.2 Improving financial performance of organizations. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Ineffective

Very effective

Percentage 2% 9% 31% 43% 16%

The majority of the respondents see consultants effective to very effective in improving the financial performance (59%). Respondents with none (67%), sometimes (54%) and continue experience (60%) see this as effective and respondents with once experience (50/50) and with frequent experiences (52%) see consultants here as ineffective. Respondents with secondary school (80%), MBO (66%),

66

HBO (58%) judge consultant as effective in improving the financial performance. WO educated respondents are distributed among ineffective and effective (50/50%). Respondents active in small (73%) and middle sized (61%) organizations judge consultants as effective in improving the financial performance. But those in large organizations do not (53%). Within the different levels there is also not a convincing majority; the respondents are distributed among ineffective and effective. Mean: 3, 65

7.3 Helping with downsizing organizations. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not effective

Percentage 2% 5% 35% 40% 19%

Very effective

For 7% of the respondents consultants are effective to very effective in downsizing. Respondents active in all sizes of organizations think that consultants are effective in downsizing. When the level increase where respondents are active in the organization, the higher the level of respondents is who answered that they experience consultants effective in downsizing (56/63/76%). MBO educated (62%) respondents think consultants are not effective in downsizing and secondary school (60%), HBO (59%) and WO educated think (64%) they are effective in downsizing. Mean: 3, 68 7.4 Fulfilling managers’ spiritual needs. Code Answer Percentage 1 Not effective 24% 2 23% 3 32% 4 17% 5 Very effective 6% In fulfilling managers‘ spiritual needs are consultants not effective according to the public. Mean: 2, 62

7.5 Helping with implementation of advice. Code 1 2 3 4 5

Answer Not effective

Very effective

Percentage 4% 7% 28% 48% 14%

67

Helping with the implementation of advice there are consultants effective to very effective in according to 62% of the respondents. Mean: 3, 64

7.6 Realizing changes of behavior of people in the organization. Code Answer Percentage 1 Not effective 4% 2 10% 3 32% 4 37% 5 Very effective 18% The majority of the respondents answers that consultants are effective to very effective in realizing changes of behavior of people in the organization (55%). In the demographics there is distribution within the answers, often 50/50%. Secondary school, MBO and HBO educated respondents see consultants effective in this point, but the higher the educational level, the lower the number of respondents who agree with this. WO educated respondents (44%) argue they think consultants are not effective at this point. Mean: 3, 54 Respondents argue that consultants are most effective in 7.1 ‗Helping organizations to grow‘ (mean: 4, 04 and 80% of the respondents answers 4 or 5). The least effective are consultants in 7.4 ‗Fulfilling managers‘ spiritual needs‘ (mean 2,62 and 47% of the respondents answers a 1 or 2)

4.8 SPSS Analysis The results are in the previous section presented. To make the analysis more reliable and grounded in this section an SPSS analysis is fulfilled. First there is an Exploratory Factor Analysis of each construct. In part three of the SPSS analysis you can find the scale reliability. Here is the reliability of the whole questionnaire and of each construct analysed. Finally, there is a regression analysis where each construct is related to the construct effectiveness. The most important results of the SPSS analysis are described in this part and every step taken, all the results and details you can find in Appendix 3.

68

4.8.1 Reliability 1. Questionnaire overall The Cronbach‘s Alpha of all the items within the questionnaire is 0,850 which is higher than 0.7, so the questionnaire is overall reliable Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha ,850

N of Items 66

2. Advice The Cronbach‘s Alpha is 0,751 within the construct Advice, thus reliable. Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha ,751

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items ,755

N of Items 12

Within the Exploratory Factor Analysis components are extracted from the constructs. Testing those components on reliability gives a lower reliability than the whole construct. Thus, there is no need to delete items and make separate components within the constructs.

3. Roles The Cronbach‘s Alpha within the construct Roles is 0,671. This is not totally reliable, because it is under 0,7. However, it is not extremely low, thus the results can be used. Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha ,671

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items ,676

N of Items 12

Components which are extracted from the SPSS analysis are labelled, for example POSITIVEROLES. After analysing some items are deleted with the intention to increase the reliability (for more details see appendix 3). Within the construct role 2 components are labelled: POSITIVEROLES and MIXEDROLES.

69

Component 1: POSITIVEROLES( Process advisor, 5: Legitimizer, 9:Coach, 10: Team builder, 11: Networker, 12: Expert) When testing the components within this construct the reliability of component 1: POSITIVEROLES is higher with a Cronbach‘s Alpha of 0.686 than the overall reliability.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items

,686

,684

N of Items 6

The second component named, MIXEDROLES have a very low reliability, and this is logic because the items within this component are not related (extra pair of hands and charlatan). In my opinion extra pair of hands is a positive role and a charlatan a negative role. 4. Competences The third construct is Competences, the Cronbach‘s Alpha within this construct is reliable. Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha ,727

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items ,728

N of Items 15

The Cronbach‘s Alpha decreases when dividing the items to components which are distracted during the Exploratory Factor Analysis. So, all items will be sustained.

5. Personal characteristics The Cronbach‘s Alpha within the construct Personal Characteristics is lower than 0.7, so this construct is not reliable. Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha ,630

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items ,611

N of Items 15

70

Looking to the Cronbach‘s Alpha of the separate components the reliability increase for the items. The first component: Is superficial, Is manipulative, Is motivated by money, Likes to overcharge, Blows high from the tower. The Cronbach‘s Alpha from this component is 0,858. Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items

,858

,858

N of Items 5

But the other component with the items: ‗Has backbone, Is curious, Is intelligent, Likes challenges‘ have a lower Cronbach‘s Alpha (0,564) then the overall Cronbach‘s Alpha. Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items

,564

,562

N of Items 4

6. Effectiveness The construct Effectiveness have a Cronbach‘s Alpha of 0,676, which is not reliable. Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items

,676

,690

N of Items 6

So, the item ‗Brings spirituality in the organization‘ is deleted which makes the construct reliable. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha ,700

N of Items 5

71

4.8.2 Regression analysis During the regression analysis the construct Effectiveness is related to the constructs; Advice, Roles, Competencies and Personal characteristics. There can be concluded that the strength of the

relationship R, which must be between -1 and 1, is in all cases positive, but also not very strong in all cases. The adjusted R square shows how much of the variance of the dependent variable is explained by the independent variable. Also, this is in all cases relatively low. The tables with these results are in appendix 3.The significance level overall is 0,040, the significance level within the construct advice (0,001) and the construct roles (0,006), thus all significant. The construct competencies and personal characteristics are not significant. The reason for this is unclear, the only thing which can be mentioned is that the constructs advice and roles have 12 items and the constructs competencies and personal characteristics have 15 items.

Model R

1

R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

a

,486 ,236

,221

,52759

Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients Std. Error

Standardized Coefficients

Model

B

1 (Constant)

,829

,401

2,068 ,040

ADVICE

,320

,095

,271 3,355 ,001

,608 1,645

ROLES

,263

,095

,217 2,758 ,006

,642 1,557

COMPETENCIES

,104

,114

,077 ,918 ,360

,560 1,786

,105

,052 ,714 ,476

,738 1,355

PERSONAL ,075 CHARACTERISTICS a. Dependent Variable: Effectiveness

Beta

Collinearity Statistics t

Sig. Tolerance

VIF

Overall, can be concluded that the reliability is relatively high. The constructs and items are chosen for a part based on literature and for a part based on common sense. Therefore, the final sample size is large enough, but could be expanded. In addition to this the respondents are people who are known with the subject, to people who are totally unknown with the subject. This all influences the results and reliability. Based on these arguments can be concluded that looking to the opportunities and the restrictions the results and reliability of this research are relatively useful and reliable.

72

5 Conclusion In this part the final conclusions will be presented. The research question and the sub questions will be answered with the help of the results gathered within this research and related to parts of the literature. Also, the remarkable results and outliers will be mentioned. The first part is about ‗the impression of consultants in public‘. The following parts are about the constructs advice, roles, competences, personal characteristics and effectiveness. Finally, there is an overview with the three most important and the least important items per construct. Then there will also be a part with summarized statistics and a figure which describes the relations founded between the constructs.

5.1 Impression of consultants in public When answering the question what the image is of consultants in public there are a lot of different perceptions. It is remarkable that a lot of people in public actually don‘t even know what a consultant is, what he or she does and are totally unknown with the consultancy business. A lot of people we asked at the street and in the train didn‘t want to fill in the questionnaire, because they were totally unfamiliar with consultants. Of the respondents 7% filled in ‗no idea‘ at the first question about what comes to mind when thinking of a consultant. There are also people who are familiar with consultants or the consultancy business, but have no experience with them (20%). The most of the respondents see consultants as people who are related to an ‗Advisor or Advice‘ (43%). So, does 5.5 % to ‗Expert‘, 7% ‗Extern‘, 10,5% ‗Help‘, around 10% ‗expensive‘, around 12% more ‗general‘ descriptive way, 2% was directly positive and 4% of the respondents was direct negative. The answers given through the public can be related to the literature. In the dictionary a consultant is described as ‗someone who gives expert or professional advice‘, ‗someone who consults another‘, both descriptions are more than once noticed in the answers of the questionnaires. Most mentioned through the public is ‗Advice‘, so those respondents agree with Kubr (2002, p.7) consulting is essentially an advisory service. Keywords in the answers agree with the definitions given through the International Council of Management Consulting Institutes, for example independent advice, assistance to clients, external, internal, generalist, and specialist. There is not one description of a consultant which is totally complete and recognized. The most of the answers given by the respondents can be related to a definition or description of a consultant which is earlier mentioned in literature. However, the answers of the respondents are their opinions, so the answers can never be wrong. Within the answers is also the description ‗expensive‘ often mentioned. In literature it also appeared that there are a lot of negative conversations and rumors about consultants. According to Glückler and Armbrüster (2003, p.273) this can be explained by the uncertainty about the sustainability of the consulting firm, its‘ professional background, status, and the qualification of its staff leads to the fact that there is no market transparency. Professional work is difficult to evaluate, at least for those outside the sphere of the experts concerned (Alvesson, 2001, p.867). To check whether

73

the public is known with work of consultants, there was a second question about the experience of the respondents with consultants. From the public it became clear that 20% of the respondents have no experience with consultants. More than 22% have a positive experience; example of a quote is ‗positive experience‘, ‗good collaboration‘. More than 8% have a negative experience. Almost 12% of them have a variable experience. For example a positive experience and a negative experience within two or more projects. According to Alvesson (2001, p.868), experience does not automatically result in the right or positive image of consultants. Therefore, the strange or difficult sides of consultants and the considerable amount of interaction between consultants and their clients in the production process, adds to task uncertainty and to the difficulties of evaluating quality of results and the performance of knowledge-intensive companies according to Alvesson (2001,p.868). Consultants try to construct organizational rationality, making grand narratives from ‗organizational myths‘ (Clark and Salaman, 1996, p.176), selling ‗hypocrisy‘, offering expectations institutionalized in consulting expertise (Alvesson, 1993, p.1004) ,formulating answers before the question has even been asked and making up managers in the fashionable recipes of the day (Clegg and Rhodos, 2004, p.35). Overall, most respondents have positive experiences with consultants.

5.2 Advice Related to the five different constructs, the sub questions can be answered. The items within the construct ‗advice‘ are all mentioned and relevant in the literature and seen by the public as part of consultants in their work. Only ‗following established procedures‘ is through the minority of the respondents seen as important. The lower educated and respondents with little or none experience related some importance to this activity and respondents with higher education and more experience with consultants answered with lower rates on importance. This is in line with the literature, because often methods and tools are used in different cases in different ways. A senior consultant in E&Y described the method used as ‗the backbone of the company‘s knowledge system‘, in that it provides a shared frame of reference and terminology that enabled the sharing and reuse of material from previous cases. Thus, following established procedures is not central in the work of consultants according to the literature and the Dutch society. Within the construct advice the activities 3.1 ‗Provide clients with help‘ (mean: 4, 33 and 86% of the respondents give a score of 4 or 5), 3.2 ‗Analyze problem for client‘ (mean: 4, 43 and 89% judge it as important to very important activity) and 3.3 ‗Give advice to client‘ (mean: 4, 57 and 92% of the respondents judge it as important to very important) are seen as most important for a consultant. The least important is item 3.12 ‗Follow established procedures‘ (mean 2,95). Overall, all the items within the first construct ‗Advice‘ are highly important according to the respondents, even the least important item have a high score(2,95 and still 31% of the respondents judge it as important to very

74

important). In total the items in the first construct ‗Advice‘ have the highest scores of all the constructs.

5.3 Roles The second construct is about the roles consultants fulfill according to the public. The role 'Extra pair of hands: help management do things management does not have time for‘ is not mentioned as an important role through the majority of the respondents. Also, within the demographics this role is unimportant. It was remarkable that the higher the level in the organization where the respondents are active, the lower the relevancy. The respondents with WO education experience this role as most unimportant (81%). The majority of the respondents see the role as legitimizer as relevant to very relevant. When I take a closer look at the demographics, it became clear that the respondents from different groups have different visions. Respondents with none (63%), once (50%) or limited (61%) experience see it as irrelevant role. Respondents with frequent (60%) and continue (74%) experience see the role as relevant. Respondents active at operational (52%) and middle management level (52%) judge the role as relevant. The majority of respondents at top management level see the role as not relevant (67%). Respondents with MBO (55%) or WO education (57%) judge the role as not relevant. Respondents with secondary school (60%) and HBO education (53%) judge the role as relevant. Respondents active in small (58%) to middle sized organizations (60%) see the role as not relevant and respondents active in large organizations as relevant (63%). Concluding can be mentioned that respondents with various demographics see the role as legitimizer as relevant as well as not relevant. Within literature the role as legitimizer is recognized by Kubr (2002, p.75), Kaarst-Brown (1999, p.542) (Kipping and Engwall (2002, p.205) and Alvesson (2001, p.869). Kubr (2002, p. 76) argues that the role as legitimizer is used to persuade. Through the respondents the role as ‗inspirator: deliverer of new ideas‘ is recognized through 67% of the respondents as important to very important. In literature Kubr (2002, p.76) mentioned that a consultant can be a deliverer of alternatives which can be related to this role. Therefore in literature there is not a focus on the role as inspirator for a consultant. ‗Devil‘s advocate‘ is seen by the majority of the respondents as relevant (67%). Respondents with sometimes frequent and continue experience with consultants give relevance to the role as critical outsider (73/60/83%). Respondents active at top management level (76%) think this role is relevant. Respondents with HBO (75%) or WO education (73%) think this role is important too. Lower educated respondents see a lower relevancy in the role (50/41%). So, there is a gap between lower and higher educated respondents. Kubr (2002, p.75) mentioned in his book the role as advocate, even as Werr and Styhre (2003, p.47) and Bouwmeester, 2010. P.87) who argues that a consultant needs the outsider position to critically discuss interests, preferences and objectives. The role as ‗hired gun‘ is according the public not a relevant role for a consultant. Within literature the role as hired gun is recognized through Sturdy (1999, p.404); consultants can be used as ‗scapegoat‘. And economists

75

like Goodwin (1988), Peacock (1992) and Thornton and Ward (1999, p. 104) characterize the consultant as a ‗hired gun‘ as opposed to the neutral, independent academic expert (Bouwmeester, 2010, p. 2). Within the Dutch society only 23% of the respondents judge this role as important, the majority see no relevance in this role. The role as coach is overall seen as important. Agreeing with this are respondents active at operational and middle management level (67/52%).Kubr (2002, p.75, 76) mentioned a role as trainer and educator for a consultant. Overall, in the Dutch society it is seen as important. Therefore, respondents active at top management level see the role as coach as not relevant (57%) and WO educated respondents answered that this role is important with a limited majority (51%). The role as expert is through the majority of respondents answered with a 4 or 5(77%), thus relevant. Kubr (2002, p.75, 76) describes an expert as someone who use special knowledge, skill and professional experience to provide a service to the client. The role of ‗networker‘ is seen as relevant, but not very relevant and more than 26% of the respondents see the role as not relevant. There is limited literature about the role as networker; because it isn‘t one of the key roles for consultants. Within the demographics in this research respondents with none (57%), once (83%), sometimes (58%) and frequent experience (60%) argue that the role is ‗not relevant‘. Respondents with continue experience see the role as relevant (66%). Remarkable is that the most respondents active at top management level see the role as not important (67%). People at top management don‘t hire consultants to help them expand their network. Often top management is also the category who have a lot of experience with consultants and the respondents with continue experience judge the role as networker as unimportant. Respondents with secondary school education see the role as relevant (60%) and the other educational levels as not relevant (66/51/61%). Respondents active in small and middle sized organizations see the role as networker as not relevant (58/65%) and respondents active in large organizations as relevant (53%). The role as team builder has no convincing relevant or not relevant role for a consultant according to the respondents. Most of the respondents in the demographics experience the role as not relevant. Remarkable is that respondents active at operational level experience the role as team builder as ‗relevant‘ (52%). Men experience the role as not relevant (62%) and women as relevant (51%). Kubr (2002, p.75) recognized this role and describes it as ‗how things are done and helps the client to integrate interpersonal and group skills and events with taskoriented activities, and to observe the best match of relationships‘. The role as process advisor is judged through the respondents as 1 of the 4 most important roles for a consultant. Remarkable is that respondents working at top management jobs see the role as process advisor as unimportant (52%). Kubr (2002, p.70) recognized the process role as one in which the consultant as an agent of change attempts to help the organization solve its own problems by making it aware of organizational processes, of their likely consequences, and of intervention techniques for stimulating change. Nees and Greiner (1985) write about the role as friendly co-pilot like a facilitator rather than as an expert, and provide no new knowledge to the client. Also, Appelbaum and Steed (2005, p.74) described the role as partner for a consultant. In public this role is overall judged as important to 57% of the

76

respondents. When I take a more detailed view on the demographics there is distribution in the level of importance. For example respondents active in small organizations judge the role 50/50 and the majority of the respondent‘s active in middle sized (58%) and large organizations (63%) judge the role as not relevant. An explanation for this could be that people in middle and large sized organizations don‘t want to work with a partner. Therefore, respondents from every level in the organization judge the role as relevant (61/52/57%). In literature there are a lot of negative conversations about consultants, for example Bloomfield and Danielie (1995, p.39) mention in their discussion that: ‗consultants are charlatans; they simply tell organizations what they already know‘. The majority of the respondents judge the role as charlatan as irrelevant. Almost in each demographic section more than 80% of the respondents see the role as charlatan as unimportant. This role is the most unimportant one according to the pubic (mean: 1, 76). The three most important roles for a consultant according to the public are 4.3 ‗ Inspirator; deliverer of new ideas‘ (mean: 3,98 and 77% of the respondents have given a score 4 or 5), role 4.7 ‗Expert; someone who knows what should be one‘ (mean: 3,98 and 77% of the respondents have given a score 4 of 5) en role 4.4 ‗Devil‘s advocate; a critical outsider‘ (mean: 3,82 and 67% of the respondents have given a score of 4 or 5).

5.4 Competences The following construct is about competences. ‗Stress tolerance‘ is 1 of the 4 advice items which is rated as highest through the respondents, in total through 84% of the respondents. Kubr (2002, p.785) also argued that it is for a consultant essential to have intellectual and emotional maturity. Kubr (2002, p.785) describes this as: stability of behavior and action, independence in drawing unbiased conclusions, ability to withstand pressures, and live with frustrations and uncertainties ability to act with poise, in a calm and objective manner, self-control in all situations and flexibility and adaptability to changed conditions. In the ‗core competency‘ framework of the ICMCI ‗focus and time management‘ mentioned and in this research this is related to item 5.2 ‗good at planning‘. This item is through the Dutch society seen as 1 of the 4 competence items which is seen as most important through 85% of the respondents. 29% of the respondents are from meaning that ‗good at selling‘ is not important and 44% think it is important. Within the demographics the results are distributed. Respondents with continue experience judge this competence as important (57%) and the others not (35/33/50/36%). Respondents active in small and middle sized organizations experience the competence good at selling as unimportant (63/56%). Respondents active in large organizations thinking that it is an important competence (53%). The majority of the respondents at operational level answered that good at selling is important (53%), at middle and top management respondents think it is unimportant (60/67%). In literature is selling often related to negative discussions; according to Kubr (2002, p.67) ‗clients are allergic to overselling‘. Result oriented is 1 of the 4 advice items which is experienced as most important (88%). Overall, in every demography the majority of respondents

77

judge the competence as important. ‗Innovative‘ is seen as an important competence for a consultant (80%), as is in every demography. Kubr (2002, p.785) noticed that for a consultant it is important to have creative competencies as creative imagination: original thinking and entrepreneurial spirit. ‗Analytical‘ is 1 of the 4 advice components which is answered by 78% of the respondents as important to very important, even as in every demographic section. In the ‗core competency‘ framework of the ICMCI ‗observation and analysis‘ is mentioned as one of the core competences. Being persuasive is through 45% of the public seen as important. There is a lot of distribution in the answers, so there is not one line whether persuasiveness is important or not. Sturdy argues (1999, p.400) that resolving conflicts and persuasion is central in the work of consultants. Clark (1995), Huczynski (19996) and Whitley (1994) also noticed that persuasive practices or impression management is crucial for consultants (Sturdy, 1999, p.400). Also, Fincham (1999, p.338) argues that in consultants‘ everyday dealing with clients, the ‗systems of persuasion‘ promote legitimizing images of their expertise and claims to knowledge. ‗Able to create a good atmosphere‘ is a competence which is seen by the majority of the respondents as important to very important (62%). Especially those respondents with continue experience with consultants think this competence is important (92%). Within the framework relationships, communication and presentation are core competences for a consultant. Also, Werr and Styhre (2003, p.47) mentioned that trustful cooperation seems to be a successful factor which requires the consultant to understand and accommodate the client‘s professional, psychological, and social wellbeing. ‗Good at taking decisions‘ is a competence which is experienced both important and not important. Overall, it is seen as important. Respondents with none (67%), once (75%) frequent (60%) and continue experience (58%) also think this. Respondents with sometimes experience see this competence as unimportant (52%). Secondary school (80%), MBO (77%) and HBO (59%) judge this competence as important, but WO educated (46%) respondents do not. Thus, the higher the education level, the lower the importance. The majority in every size of organizations judge this competence as important even as every level in the organization, except middle management (47%). Male respondents see it as important and unimportant and women as important (72%). The literature about ‗good at taking decisions‘ is limited. 66% of the respondents think that ‗good at coaching‘ is important for a consultant. This is also given in the results within every demography. ‗Good at being dominant‘ is according to the respondents not important. All respondents together 35% see not any importance in the competence ‗good at using jargon‘. Within the demographic sections it also became clear that this competence is not important. According to Kubr (2002, p.67) clients are immune to consultants‘ use of jargon. ‗Good at recycling solutions‘ is according to 15% of the respondent‘s not important and 48% important. Respondents with continue experience see it as important (66%) and the other respondents not or there is a 50/50 distribution. Respondents from all educational levels judge this competence as unimportant. Within the sizes of organizations it is 50/50 distributed even as at the different levels in organizations. In literature is mentioned that consultants reuse old cases, but they often adapt solutions earlier used. Therefore

78

reusing solutions is not always negative according to Werr and Stjernberg (2003, p.892) a main advantage is the level of detail and concreteness that previous cases can provide. Specifics such as the timing, resource requirements, detailed design of key meetings, and so on were often derived from previous cases.’ Good at avoiding accountability‘ by bad advice is not important according to the respondents in the table and in every demography even as ‗good at getting people fired‘, which is according to the respondents the most unimportant(mean: 1,74). Item 5.1 ‗Stress tolerance‘ (mean 4:08, 84%) 5.4 ‗Result oriented‘ (mean: 4, 36, 88%), 5.6 ‗Analytical‘ (mean 4, 34, 78%) are the most importance competences for a consultant according to the public.

5.5 Personal characteristics Within the construct Personal characteristics the results, literature, outliers and related conclusions will be discussed in the following part. ‗Is a workaholic‘ is for the majority of the respondents not relevant. The literature about this characteristic for a consultant is limited. ‗Being curious‘ is according to the respondents 1 of the 4 most important characteristics for a consultant. Remarkable is the total respondents with continue experience which see this characteristic as important (97%). Overall, all the respondents within every demography experience this characteristic as important. Also, Kubr (2002, p.785) mentioned qualities for a consultant like the ability to learn quickly and easily and the ability to observe, gather, select and evaluate facts. This can also be related to the personal characteristic 6.11 ‗Likes variety in his/her work and 6.12 ‗Likes challenges and 6.15 ‗Is intelligent‘. According to the public it is relevant for a consultant that he likes variety, likes challenges and is intelligent, therefore the last two are two of the four most important characteristics. According to the public the level of relevancy of ‗is a number cruncher‘ is distributed. From the demographics it appears that overall it is experienced as not relevant. Only secondary school educated respondents experience it as relevant (60%). Nees and Greinier (1985) describe in one of their categories a consultant as a strategic navigator; who bases his or her contribution on quantitative results. ‗Being superficial‘, ‗manipulative‘ ,‘motivated to improve the life of others‘ and ‗blows high from the tower‘ is experienced through the respondents as not relevant. Blows high from the tower is the most irrelevant according to the public (mean: 1, 91). ‗Having backbone‘ is important for a consultant according to the respondents (72%). Especially respondents with continue experience see this characteristic as important (88%). Respondents active at top management level are not all convinced by this characteristic (57%). Therefore especially respondents in large organizations experience this characteristic as important (85%). ‗Being reflective‘ is through the majority of respondents seen as relevant personal characteristic for a consultant (75%). This is 1 of the 4 most important characteristics. Especially respondents working at top management level are convinced by this characteristic (95%). Kubr noticed the importance of being reflective and having backbone as consultant. You need good judgment and using inductive and deductive reasoning

79

and have the ability to admit mistakes and learn from failure. To be reflective you also need to be able to recognize limitations and admit mistakes and learn from failures. To have backbone and to be reflective is important related to the qualities of a consultant according to Kubr to have self-control and self-confidence in the right degree. ‗Brings in experience from outside‘ is for the majority of respondents relevant (78%), therefore it is seen as 1 of the 4 most important characteristics for a consultant. Especially respondents with continue experience see this as relevant characteristic (88%). Werr and Stjernberg (2003, p. 892) agree with this ‗ consultants see their own and their colleagues experience as the most important source of knowledge in designing and carrying out consulting projects‘. There are often negative discussions about the compensations of consultants. As in the questionnaire stated consultants are ‗motivated by money‘ and often send high bills and ‗likes to overcharge‘, the respondents think both characteristics are not relevant for a consultant .According to Kubr (2002, p.792) the consultancy profession, just like other professions, uses factors to measure which compensation is appropriate. There can be thought of: seniority, profitability of firm, personal billing, personal selling, client satisfaction, training and development of consultants etc. (Kubr, 2002, p. 795). The three most important personal characteristic for a consultant are according to the public; 6.12 ‗Likes challenges‘ (Mean: 4, 11 and 82% gives a score of 4 or 5). 6.15 ‗Is intelligent‘ (Mean: 4, 08 and 78% of the respondents gives a score of 4 or 5) and 6.8 ‗Brings in experience from outside‘ (Mean: 4, 03 and 78% of the respondents gives a score of 4 or 5). The least important personal characteristic according to the respondents is 4.14 ‗Blows high from the tower (Mean: 1,91 and 12% of the respondents judge it as important to very important).

5.7 Effectiveness The last construct within the questionnaire questioned in which activities consultants are effective according to the opinion of the respondents. The majority of the respondents see consultant effective to very effective in improving the financial performance (59%). Kipping and Engwal (2002, p.205) argue that quantifiable results must be separated from the results and effectiveness of consultants; ‗The demand for their advice may thus be decoupled from ‗measurable impact‘. The use of consultants can also be seen as a direct way to improve profitability through a variety of techniques (Poulfelt and Payne, 1994, p.421). In fulfilling managers‘ spiritual needs are consultants not effective according to the public; this scored the lowest within this construct (mean: 2, 62). In the literature this is a trend and they use it in companies like IBM and Deloitte (Casey, 2004, p.61). Respondents argue that consultants are most effective in 7.1 ‗Helping organizations to grow‘ (mean: 4, 04 and 80% of the respondents answers 4 or 5).They also think consultants are effective in helping with downsizing organizations and helping with the implementation of advice. In the literature Kubr (2002, p.10) remarks the following points as generic purposes to use a consultant ‗achieving organizational purposes and objectives and implementing changes‘. Werr and Styhre (2003, p.48) add to these points

80

that performance seems to be essential in the work of consultants, because often their ideas and techniques play a central role in creating the organization in such a way to control, change and improve- and at the same time, reinforcing a positive identity. Therefore, the public reacted different to the effectiveness of consultants in realizing changes of behavior of people in the organization. Overall, 55% thinks that they are effective in this activity. In the demographics there is distribution within the answers, often 50/50. WO educated respondents argue they think consultants are not effective at this point (44%). According to the respondents consultants are the most effective in 7.1 ‗Helping organizations to grow‘ (mean 4,04 and 80% of the respondents judge it consultants are effective to very effective). The least effective are consultants in 7.4 ‗Fulfilling managers‘ spiritual needs‘ (mean 2,62).

In the following table there is a short overview given of the three most important items and the least important items per construct according to the Dutch society investigated in this research.

Table 8 Summarized results Construct

Item

Mean % of respondents who answered with important to very important

Advice

Provide clients with help

4,33

86%

Analyse problem for client

4,43

89%

Give advice to client

4,57

92%

Follow established

2,95

31%

Inspirator

3,98

77%

Devil‘s advocate

3,82

67%

Expert

3,98

77%

Charlatan

1,76

9%

Stress tolerance

4,08

84%

Result oriented

4,36

88%

Analytical

4,34

78%

Good at getting people fired

1,74

8%

Likes challenges

4,11

82%

Is intelligent

4,08

78%

Brings in experience from

4,03

78%

1,91

12%

procedures Roles

Competences

Personal characteristics

outside Blows high from the tower

81

Effectiveness

Helping organizations to

4,04

80%

2,62

23%

grow Helping with fulfilling managers‘ spiritual needs

5.8 Relations between constructs. Testing the reliability overall there can be concluded the questionnaire is reliable (Cronbach‘s Alpha 0,850). Testing the reliability of the constructs separately only the construct Advice have a convincing Cronbach‘s Alpha of 0,751 and the construct Competences with a Cronbach‘s Alpha of 0,727. The other constructs have a reliability of 0,671, 0,630 and 0,676, this isn‘t very low. Thus, they are relatively reliable. Through a regression analysis I tested if there was a relation between the independent constructs Advice, Roles, Competences and Personal characteristics and the dependent variable Effectiveness. The R-square and the adjusted R-square are all above 0, which meant there is a relation between the dependent and independent variables, but in all cases this relationship is not very strong. The significance level overall is 0,040, the significance level between the construct Advice and Effectiveness is (0,001) and the significance level between the construct Roles and Effectiveness is (0,006). The significance level between the construct Competencies and Effectiveness is (0,360) and the significance level between the construct Personal characteristics and Effectiveness is ( 0,476), which both isn‘t significant. Out of these results the relations are graphical presented in FIGURE 5.8. FIGURE 12: Relation between Effectiveness and the constructs Advice, Roles, Competencies and Personal characteristics.

1. Advice

+

2. Roles

+

5. Effectiveness 3. Competencies 4. Personal characteristics

-

+ = significant relation - = not a significant relation

82

6. Discussion 6.1 Limitations In total 400 respondents participated in this research. This is according to the limited time frame enough, but to make the results more reliable it is advisable to require more respondents. Therefore, the respondents are for a great part highly educated, which is not reliable and in one line with the education level within the Netherlands. Beforehand in the methods is described that the gathering of data from the respondents would take 4 to 6 weeks. Gathering data was a quite more difficult than I thought and took more time than beforehand was planned. The whole process beforehand of making the questionnaire putting it online, pilot testing, searching for email-addresses and overall the waiting till respondents finally fill in the questionnaire took too much time. A disadvantage of a questionnaire is that the results I gathered are not supported with an explanation and you never know if respondents fill in the questionnaire seriously and if they really understand what is meant by the questions. The items chosen within the constructs are not selected on specific characteristics or requirements. Just those items which are described in literature in combination with common sense are used to select the items. Therefore, not all activities, roles, competences and personal characteristics can be in the questionnaire asked, because the questionnaire would become too long and respondents would not be motivated to fill in the questionnaire. Within the first construct, I divided the answers in ‗categories‘. These categories are related to the answers and created and divided by myself. Here is no statistical evidence; it is according to my own interpretation. The reliability out of the SPSS analysis is relatively high, if you look to the overall results, but often the Cronbach‘s alpha is below 0,7 which is not high enough. The results are in most cases significant, but not in all. However, the research is about the opinion of the Dutch society, so this can be an explanation of different reliability levels, significance and results. Overall, can be concluded that the results are very useful and reliable.

6.2 Further research Within further research more time can be taken to gather more results and increase the sample size, which will increase the generalizability of the research. Other and more items could be tested within the public. The research can be expanded and become more reliable, if there will be some faceto-face interviews added. Requiring quantitative and qualitative data will give the opportunity to develop a perception of respondents with different tools and from different sights. Thus, the data will become more broad, detailed and grounded. To expand the research there can also be group sessions used to gather data related to the thinking of the respondents. Within this session you can ask respondents for support of their answer and in some situations there can be discussions which can give interesting insights. For the MCD Conference there is also done research to the image of consultants in the Netherlands by consultants themselves, clients and academics. Within further research these results

83

can be related and there can be tested in which ways these results have comparing and differing results.

6.3 Ending words Through this research there is more insight gathered in the opinion of the Dutch society about consultants. The most important points are that a lot of people are unknown with consultants and that the greatest part of the results is positive. Therefore, it is quite strange that in the media there is a lot written about consultants, for example the high level of hiring of consultants through the government. And still a lot of people are unknown with consultants. To make the consultancy business a real profession with a positive image it is important that this image will be spread out within the public. Within literature the opinion of the public about consultant is limited researched. The public is an important group, because they could be your future clients. This research added information to the gap in literature. For consultants it is also an opportunity to get familiar with their image in public to see at which points they can improve or adapt their image in public.

84

References Books: Alvesson, A. and Johansson, A., (2002) Professionalism and Politics in Management Consultancy Work., pp.228- 243.

Bouwmeester, O.,(2010) Economic Advice and Rhetoric; Why do Consultants Perform Better than Academic Advisers? Cheltenham; Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Buono A.F. and Jamieson D. W.,(2010) Consultation for Organizational Change; A volume in: research in management consulting and contemporary trends in organization development and change. Information Age Publishing., pp. 15-41. Kipping, M and Armbruster, T., (2002) ―The Burden of Otherness: Limits of Consultancy Interventions in Historial Case Studies‖. In: Kipping, M. and Engwall, L. (eds.) Management Consulting. Emergence and Dynamics of a Knowledge Industry. Oxford, Oxford University Press. pp. 203-221.

Kubr, M., (2002) Management Consulting: a guide to the profession.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., (2009) Research methods for business students.

Articles: Alvesson, A., (2001) Knowledge work: Ambiguity, image and identity Vol. 54(7), pp. 863–886.

Alvesson,M., Karreman, D., Sturdy, A., Handley, K., (2009)Unpacking the client(s): Constructions, positions and client—consultant dynamics , Scandinavian Journal of Management 25, pp. 253—263.

Appelbaum, S.H., & Steed, A.J.,( 2005) The critical success factors in the client-consulting relationship, Journal of Management Development Vol. 24(1), pp. 68-93.

Balogun, J., and Johnson, G., (2005) From Intended Strategies to Unintended Outcomes: The Impact of Change Recipient Sensemaking.

Berglund, J. and Werr, A., (2000) The Invincible Character of Management Consulting Rhetoric: How One Blends Incommensurates while Keeping them Apart. Organization, Vol 7(4), pp. 633-655.

85

Bennet, R. and Kottasz, R., (2000) Reputation management section: practitioner perceptions of corporate reputation: an empirical investigation. Corporate Communication, Vol. 5 (4) pp. 224-234.

Casey, C., (2004) Bureaucracy Re-Enchanted? Spirit, Experts and Authority in Organizations, School of Business and Economics, Volume 11(1) pp.59–79. Clegg, S.R.; Kornberger, M and Rhodes, C., (2004) ―Noise, Parasites and Translation. Theory and Practices in Management Consulting‖. Management Learning. Vol. 35 (1), pp. 31-44.

De Caluwé, L. and Reitsma, E., (2010) A research study of senior management consultants. Consultation for organizational change, pp.15-40. De Caluwé, L. and Stoppelenburg, A., (2004) Developing criteria for effectiveness of consultant‘s work. Second international conference on management consulting, pp.1-15.

Dillman, D.A., (1978), Mail and Telephone Surveys: The total design method. New York. Wiley & Sons.

Dillman, D.A., (1991) The Design and Administration of mail surveys. Annual review Sociology, Vol. 17, pp. 225-249. Fincham, R., (1999) ―The Consultant-client relationship: Critical perspectives on the management of organizational change‖. Journal of Management Studies, Vol.36 (3) pp. 335-351. Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W. and D‘Amelio, A., (2008) ―Resistance to Change: The Rest of the Story‖. In: Academy of Management Review. Vol. 33 (2). pp. 362-377.

George, M., (2003) Interactions in Expert Service Work Demonstrating Professionalism in Personal Training: Organization Studies, Vol.24 (2), pp. 269–297.

Glückler, J. and Armbrüster, T., (2003) Bridging Uncertainty in Management Consulting: The Mechanisms of Trust and Networked Reputation*, Vol.24 (2), pp.269-297.

Greiner, L. And Ennsfellner, I., (2009) Management Consultants as Professionals, or Are They? Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 39, (1), pp. 72–83.

86

Hinkin, T.R., (1998) A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, Vol 1, (1), pp.104-121.

Jang, Y. and Lee, J., (1998) Factors influencing the success of management consulting projects. International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, (.2), pp. 67-72. Kaarst-Brown, M.L., (1999) ―Five symbolic roles of the external consultant. Integrating change, power and symbolism‖. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12 (6), pp. 540-561.

Karantinou, K.M., & Hogg, M.K., (2001) Exploring Relationship Management in Professional Services: A Study of Management Consultancy, Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 17, p. 263286.

Pace, C.R. and Friedlander, J.,(1982) The meaning of response categories: How Often is "Occasionally," "Often,"and "Very Often"? Research in higher education, Vol. 17(3) pp.267-281.

Poulfelt, F. and Payne, A., (1994) Management consultants: Client and Consultant Perspectives Stand. J. Mgmt, Vol. 10, (4), pp. 421-436.

Saxton, T., (1995) The Impact of Third Parties on Strategic Decision Making: Roles, Timing and Organizational Outcomes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol 8(3), pp. 47-62.

Schaefer, D.R. and Dillman, D.A.., (1998) Development of a standard e-mail methodology: results of an experiment. Public opinion quarterly.

Schein, E., (1990) A General Philosophy of Helping: Process Consultation. Sloan Management Review. Vol 31 (3), pp. 57-63. Sturdy, A (1997) ―The Consultancy process - an insecure business?‖ Journal of Management Studies , Vol.34 (3) pp. 389-413.

Wellington, C. and Bryson, J., (2001) At Face Value? Image Consultancy, Emotional Labour and Professional Work. Sociology, Vol. 35 (4 ),pp.933- 946.

Werr, A. and Stjernberg, T., (2003) Exploring Management Consulting Firms as Knowledge Systems.

87

Werr, A. and Styhre, A., (2003). ―Management Consultants - Friend or Foe? Understanding the Ambiguous Client-Consultant Relationship‖. International Studies of Management and Organization. Vol. 32, (4)pp. 43-66.

Werr,A., Stjernberg, T. and Docherty, P., (1997)The functions of methods of change in management consulting. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 10(4) pp. 288-307.

Internet sites:

Cbs.nl Managementenconsulting.nl The International Council of Management Consulting Institutes (ICMCI)

88

Appendices

Appendix 1

VRAGENLIJST: HET IMAGO VAN MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Wij doen in het kader van onze afstudeerscriptie onderzoek naar het imago van de management consultant. Dit onderzoek vindt plaats in het Center for Research on Consultancy van de Vrije Universiteit van Amsterdam en staat onder supervisie van prof.dr. Léon de Caluwé. De uitkomsten van het onderzoek zullen worden gepresenteerd op de Internationale Conferentie over Management Consultancy van de Academy of Management die in juni 2011 plaatsvindt op de Vrije Universiteit. Wij stellen het erg op prijs als u een bijdrage zou willen leveren aan het onderzoek door het invullen van de vragenlijst die u via de onderstaande link kunt vinden. De vragenlijst begint met twee open vragen en daarna volgen een aantal gesloten vragen. Wij willen u vragen om eerst de twee open vragen te beantwoorden en daarna de rest van de vragen. Het invullen van de totale vragenlijst zal ongeveer tien minuten in beslag nemen en onderaan het scherm kunt u zien hoeveel procent u van de totale vragenlijst ingevuld heeft. Bij voorbaat onze hartelijke dank. Mocht u nog vragen hebben, dan kan dit via de 'contact' button links in het scherm. Vriendelijke groet, Dany van den Berg en Joyce de Heus, masterstudenten van de Faculteit Economische Wetenschappen en Bedrijfskunde van de Vrije Universiteit van Amsterdam

89

1.1

Wat is het eerste waar u aan denkt bij een consultant?

1.2

Hoe zou u een consultant omschrijven?

2. Demografie 2.1

Gelieve een kruisje te zetten in de kolom van uw antwoord. Hoeveel ervaring heeft u zelf met consultants? geen eenmalig af en toe regelmatig continue

SCORE

2.2

Kunt u uw ervaring met consultants omschrijven?

2.3

Wat is uw leeftijd?

2.4

In welk sector werkt u? industrie zakelijke dienstverlening overheid non profit geen baan/werkloos/gepensioneerd overig

SCORE

2.5

Op werk niveau werkt u binnen de organisatie? Operationeel niveau Midden management Top management Niet van toepassing

SCORE

2.6

Wat is uw hoogste opleidingsniveau? Middelbare school Middelbaar beroepsonderwijs (MBO) Hogerberoepsonderwijs (HBO) Wetenschappelijk onderwijs (WO) Anders

SCORE

2.7

Wat is uw geslacht? Man

SCORE

90

Vrouw 2.8

Wat is de omvang van de organisatie waar u werkt? Kleine organisatie (minder dan 50 werknemers) Middelgrote organisatie (50- 1000 werknemers) Grote organisatie (meer dan 1000 werknemers) Niet van toepassing

2.9

Wat is uw woonplaats?

SCORE

3. Advies In welke mate staan de volgende activiteiten volgens u centraal in het werk van een consultant? (1= niet belangrijk; 5= zeer belangrijk Vul uw numerieke voorkeur (1 tm 5) onder de kolom 'SCORE' SCORE

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12

Klanten helpen Problemen van klanten analyseren Klanten adviseren Onafhankelijkheid t.o.v de klant Advies geven door middel van eigen expertise, instrumenten en methoden Het implementeren van oplossingen voor of met de klant Interveniëren in de organisatie van de klant Oplossen van strategische problemen Het hecht samenwerken met de klant Het ontwikkelen van nieuwe (markt) kansen voor de klant Het adviseren over korte termijn problemen in de organisatie Het volgen van bewezen procedures

4. Rol In welke mate vervult een consultant volgens u de volgende rollen voor een klant? (1= deze rol is niet relevant; 5: deze rol is zeer relevant) Vul uw numerieke voorkeur (1 tm 5) onder de kolom 'SCORE' SCORE

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12

Extra paar handen: verleent hulp aan management, waar het management geen tijd voor heeft Legitimeerder: ondersteunt bij het nemen van beslissingen Inspirator: het brengen van nieuwe ideeën Advocaat van de duivel: een kritische buitenstaander Hired gun: brengt slecht nieuws dat management zelf niet wil brengen Coach: leert individuen en teams om beter te worden Expert: iemand die weet wat er gedaan moet worden Netwerker: legt verbinding met andere organisaties Teambuilder: ontwikkelt teams en samenwerking Procesadviseur: faciliteert het proces Vriendelijke copiloot: een ervaren klankbord Charlatan: een verkoper van gebakken lucht

5. Competenties

91

Hoe belangrijk zijn volgens u de volgende competenties voor een consultant in diens werk? (1= niet belangrijk; 5: zeer belangrijk) Vul uw numerieke voorkeur (1 tm 5) onder de kolom 'SCORE'

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15

Een competente consultant is: Stressbestendig Goed in plannen Goed in verkopen Resultaatgericht Innovatief Analytisch Overredend In staat een goede sfeer te creëren Goed in het nemen van beslissingen Goed in het coachen Dominant aanwezig Goed in het gebruiken van jargon Goed in het hergebruiken van oplossingen Goed in het vermijden van aansprakelijkheid bij slecht advies Goed in het ontslaan van mensen

SCORE

6. Persoonlijke karakteristieken In welke mate bezit een goede consultant volgens u de volgende karakteristieken? (1= nee, dit karakteristiek is niet relevant, 5= ja, dit karakteristiek is zeer relevant) Vul uw numerieke voorkeur (1 tm 5) onder de kolom 'SCORE' SCORE

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15

Is een workaholic Is nieuwsgierig Werkt graag met cijfers Is oppervlakkig Is manipulatief Is gemotiveerd om het leven van anderen te verbeteren Heeft een sterke ruggengraat Brengt ervaring in van elders Is reflectief Wordt gemotiveerd door geld Houdt van de variatie in zijn/haar werk Houdt van uitdagingen Stuurt graag hoge rekeningen Blaast hoog van de toren Is intelligent

7. Effectiviteit Op welke onderstaande punten zijn consultants volgens u effectief? (1= niet effectief; 5: zeer effectief) Vul uw numerieke voorkeur (1 tm 5) onder de kolom 'SCORE' SCORE

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5

Helpen organisaties te verbeteren Verbeteren de financiële prestaties van het bedrijf Helpen reorganisaties uit te voeren Brengen spiritualiteit in de organisatie Helpen bij het implementeren van advies

92

Realiseren van veranderingen in het gedrag van mensen in de organisatie

7.6

HARTELIJK DANK VOOR UW MEDEWERKING

English version constructs and items. To what extent are the following activities central to being a consultant?

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12

(1= to a limited extent; 5: to a large extent) Provide clients with help Analyze problems for client Give advice to client Be independent from client Base activities on expertise, tools and methods Implement solutions for/with client Intervening in the client's organization Solve strategic issues Work in close collaboration with client Seize new (market)opportunities for clients Advise about short term problems Follow established procedures (code of conduct)

2. Roles To what extent do consultants fulfill the following roles for clients?

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12

(1= to a limited extent; 5: to a large extent) Extra pair of hands: help management do things management do not have time for Legitimizer: provide support for decisions Inspirator: deliverer of new ideas Devil‘s advocate: be a critical outsider Hired gun: bring bad news management doesn‘t want to bring itself Coach: teach individuals or teams to become better Expert: someone who knows what should be done Networker: connector to other organizations Teambuilder: builder of teams and cooperation Process consultant: helper who facilitates Friendly co-pilot: a more experienced sparring partner Charlatan: seller of hot air

5. Competencies

93

How important are the following competencies for a consultant?

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15

(1= not important; 5: very important) Stress tolerance Good at planning Good at selling Results oriented Innovative Analytical Persuasive Able to create a good atmosphere Good at taking decisions Good at coaching Good at being dominant Good at using jargon Good at recycling solutions Good at avoiding accountability for bad advice Good at getting people fired

6. Personal characteristics To what extent does a good consultant have the following personality characteristics?

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15

(1= no, this characteristic is not relevant; 5: yes, this characteristic is very relevant) Is a workaholic Is curious Is a number cruncher/likes figures Is superficial Is manipulative Is motivated to improve the life of others Has backbone Brings in experience from outside Is reflective Is motivated by money Likes variety in his/her work Likes challenges Likes overcharging clients Blows high from the tower Is intelligent

5. Effectiveness To what extent are consultants effective with the following?

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

(1= not effective; 5: very effective) Helping organizations to grow Improving financial performance of organizations Helping with downsizing organizations Fulfilling managers‘ spiritual needs Helping with implementation of advice Realizing changes of behaviour of people in the organization

94

Appendix 2 Results questionnaire Construct 1- General Vraag 1: Waar denkt u aan bij een consultant? 1. Adviseur/ advies 42.97% Adviseur  47.37% Advies 29.47% Advies expert. Adviesgesprek. Adviseren op een bepaald gebied. Adviseren over het oplossen van een probleem. Advisering op vakgebieden. Adviseur aan derden op een bepaald kennisgebied. Adviseur, trusted. Een adviseur die zijn/haar kennis in het betreffende vakgebied weet over te brengen. (De beste kennis en kunde op het juiste moment in de juiste organisatie) Ik denk voornamelijk aan een ZZP'er. Een bevlogen persoon met kennis van zaken en een goed luisterend oor. Algemeen, generalist, adviseur. Adviseur, sparring partner. Adviseur met een commercieel belang. Betaalde adviseur. Luisteren, analyseren en adviseren . Overleg. Overleg, adviseur. Praktisch advies bij problemen binnen het bedrijf, waarvoor intern geen tijd/ruimte is om dit op te lossen. Projectmatig, advies. Een consultant geeft specialistisch advies aan management of particulieren. Een persoon die advies geeft over een bepaald onderwerp (waar diegene in gespecialiseerdis) naar aanleiding van een onderzoek. Een professional die binnen een bepaald vakgebied een andere partij van advies dient. Gespecialiseerd adviseur. 2.

Expert 5.4% Professional. Expert. Iemand die ivoor een bepaald tarief ingehuurd wordt vanwege bepaalde kennis of deskundigheid. Iemand die specialist is. Iemand met kennis van zaken. Iemand met specifieke kennis over een bepaald werkgebied, die zich laat inhuren om een vraag of probleem te analyseren en een oplossing voor te stellen. Specialist op specifiek gebied. Tijdelijke ondersteuning en expertise. Deskundige op een bepaald gebied. Deskundigheid. Expert who delivers professional services .

3.

Extern 7.21% Externe adviseur 2% Iemand van buiten. Iemand van buiten die werkt met een powerpoint. Ingezet binnen externe organisaties waarop verschillende niveaus sprake is van hoog oplopende problematiek. Inhuren voor korte projecten.

95

Inhuurkracht. Inkopen van kennis of kunde. Inhuren. Een (dure) externe adviseur. Externe expertise inhuren. Externe hulp. Externe noodzakelijk maar dure adviseur. 4.

Hulp 10.36% Raad vragen aan iemand. Raadgever. Voorlichter. Voorlichting. Iemand die me verder kan helpen. Iemand die mij helpt een probleem op te lossen. Bemiddelaar, oplossingen zoeken. Iemand die (mogelijk) helpt bij het oplossen van problemen. Probleemoplosser. Projecten, eventueel tijdelijke assistentie. Een commerciële probleemoplosser. Een ‗external‘ die een bedrijf ‗helpt‘ bij management zaken. Een persoon in strak pak die alle problemen komt oplossen. Een specialist die helpt bij het oplossen van problemen. Helpen bij verandering. Het analyseren van situaties, daarbij verbeterpunten geeft . Iemand die helpt. Laat je zien wat je zelf niet ziet. Iemand die goed kan regelen en streng met advies. Iemand die je ondersteunt bij het maken van keuzes. Ondersteuning.

5.

Duur  9.91% Duur  3% Hoge kosten. Kost veel naar verhouding wat er geleverd wordt. Kostbaar. Overheid, gemeente, hoog uurloon. Uurtarief. Dat gaat geld kosten. Kost veel en weet niet veel van mijn business. Dure adviseur. Dure ‗externe‘ en reorganisatie. Duur, maar handig. Een duurbetaalde, ingehuurde, specialist. Harde werker voor veel geld. Hoge kosten door het niet inzetten van eigen personeel, of geen mogelijkheid bieden tot. Iemand die advies geeft voor (veel) geld. Iemand die een hoog tarief vraagt, en een advies geeft waar je eigenlijk ook niet heel veel mee kan.

6.

Algemeen 12.16% Finance  2% Consult. Begeleider. Begeleider in maatpak. Gesprek. Manager. Zakenman. Afspraak.

96

Bank. Een prater. Man. Mijzelf. Analyseren. Hopen op vertrouwen. KPMG, PWC . Onderzoekcentrum. Zakelijk. Iemand die iets probeert te verkopen. Verkoper Veel werk en headcount reductie. Reorganisatie. 7.

Positief algemeen 2.25% Bevlogen persoon met kennis van zaken en een goed luisterend oor. Flexibel. Verbaal en sociaal vaardig. Verbetering. Mooie baan.

8.

Negatief algemeen 3.6% Een consultant is iemand die ervan houdt zichzelf te horen. Negatief zakenmannetje die alles beter weet. Een persoon met een ‗masker‘ op. Glad. Iemand die komt vertellen hoe het zou moeten. Snelle jongens. Moet ik dit wel doen. Snelle jongen die net van de universiteit komt.

2. Kunt u uw ervaring met consultants omschrijven? 1. Geen  20% 2. Positief  22.35% Goed  3% Positief Zeer positief Goed. Dienstverlenend. Indien de consultant in-house is dan is de consultant soms te afwachtend, proberen alle partijen te vriend te houden. Goed maar sommige zijn erg opdringerig. Goed. Vaak veel kennis van specifiek gebied. Goed. Professioneel en kundig. Als positief. Flexibele professionals die snel kunnen schakelen. Bevalt prima Als prettig. Consultants geven direct of indirect relevante informatie en hebben in het algemeen een klantvriendelijke benadering, houden rekening met gevoeligheid van informatie en zijn service gericht. De meeste mensen hebben veel kennis op een specifiek gebied en zijn daardoor ondersteunend voor de praktijk. Door elkaar toch wel goed; aangezien we zeer selectief zijn met inhuren. Als je ze goed toepast zijn ze waardevol. Doorgaans goed opgeleide mensen die weten waar ze het over hebben. Enkele rotte appels daargelaten. Ervaringen zijn in het algemeen goed. Ervaringen zijn over het algemeen beknopt maar meestal redelijk positief. Ik heb ze kunnen gebruiken als prettige en zinvolle sparringpartner.

97

Kritisch maar over het algemeen positief. Ligt eraan op welk vlak. Werk zelf met creative consultants in retail. Over het algemeen: zeer productief met enorme visie(op ieder vlak), veel klantgerichtheid. Mijn ervaring is prettig. Tijdens de samenwerking kom je erachter dat het goed is dat er af en toe een persoon van buitenaf naar de situatie kijkt. Bovendien hebben consultants vaak vergelijkbare problemen bij andere bedrijven gezien. Over het algemeen prima ervaringen en duidelijke uitleg over het gewenste product Over het algemeen 'verfrissend'. Positieve ervaringen, omdat mijn vraagstukken worden beantwoord. Prettig, echter indien een consultant niet de interne kennis van het bedrijf heeft kan dit als vervelend worden ervaren. Prettig en helpend. Uitstekende samenwerking. Vooralsnog is dit een goede ervaring. Het zijn mensen die hard werken en die voornamelijk uitvoering geven aan een project. De kennis van de organisatie ontbreekt hierbij wel eens. Wanneer de definitie van een consultant is zoals ik beschreven heb, dan heb ik goede ervaringen met consultants Weet ineens ongeveer wat het is. En ik denk dat wij er een hebben voor de een zorgroute bij ons op school. Goede ervaring mee. Zeer prettig, visie op verandering. Denken in oplossingen . Zelf inhuren om expertise eigen afdeling aan te vullen, als projectleider/collega: als je ze goed brieft en goed overleg hebt, zijn ze hun geld waard. 3. Negatief  8.24% Negatief. De meeste komen een klus klaren, weten al welke; laten met moeite merken dat ze andere wending niet echt prettig vinden. Spelen het tough. Deskundigheid lijkt meestal te wensen over te laten. Gematigd positief. Men wijst vooral op de basis principes, in ons geval in de commerciële kontakten met afnemers, die door laten we zeggen bedrijfsblindheid soms een beetje op de achtergrond raken. Matig (maar hierbij refereer ik enkel aan de ervaring op het gebied van werving en selectie consultants). Mijn ervaring is dat je komt om advies, maar zelf erg hard moet meedenken. Ik zou liever zien dat een consultant meer vraagt. Niet echt positief, Omdat ze steeds enkel maar één echt doel voor ogen hadden en dat was FTE reductie. Niet echt serieus dingen oppakken en achter alles moet je zelf aanzitten. Over t algemeen niet waar voor je geld, maken veel uren en willen die natuurlijk ook declareren tot op de minuut. Vaak geen nuttige aanvulling. Voor je in zee gaat met een consultant moet je zelf ook goed je huiswerk hebben gemaakt. Vaak kletsen ze maar wat. Werktaalgeleiding, totaal nutteloos. Hielp niet, wilde meer tijd schrijven dan gebruikt. Was verplicht anders was ik snel weggeweest. Zeer zelden erg positief. Meestal tijdverspillend. 4. Gevarieerd  11.76% Grote verschillen. Zeer ervaren consultants die goed en to the point organisaties verder helpen,maar ook minder ervaren consultants die net zo weinig van het probleem afweten als de opdrachtgever. Heel verschillend. Van vakidioten tot meedenkende buitenstaanders. Redelijk. Regelmatig noemen mensen zich consultant maar weten alleen datgene waar ze zich voor aanbieden. Daarbuiten weten ze niet veel. Soms goed, soms slecht. Soms kunnen ze heel nuttig zijn, maar over het algemeen missen ze toch de ervaring en vragen ze onvoldoende door om de stof volledig in beeld te kunnen brengen. Veel consultants zijn op hun eigen terrein over het algemeen zeer kundig, maar vertonen een onstellende gebrek aan inlevingsvermogen in het klimaat van het bedrijf van de cliënt. De

98

mogelijkheden van geadviseerden om vaardig met het advies om te gaan worden vaak genegeerd. En dan doet de deskundigheid van het advies er niet meer toe. Veel kennis op bepaalde onderdelen, maar overzien in veel gevallen de totale samenhang niet altijd. Veelal veel slagkracht in het bij elkaar krijgen van alle benodigde informatie voor een advies. Wel weinig toegevoegde waarde bij het creëren van vernieuwende inzichten voor de organisatie. Wisselend. Wisselend; afhankelijk van de interactie vaak succesvol of minder succesvol. Vaak hebben wij hogere verwachtingen van de kennis en blijkt men zich nog (te veel?) in de materie te moeten verdiepen. Wisselend: drama tot fantastisch. Wisselend. Ze hebben vrijwel altijd een fors uurtarief. Sommige zijn dat waard, andere niet. Soms komt er een concreet resultaat uit, soms staat vooral hun eigen belang (geld verdienen,kennis halen i.p.v. brengen) voorop. Wisselende ervaringen. Goede ervaringen met hen die inhoudelijk deskundig zijn maar vooral goed luisteren naar de vraag en daar met een specifieke oplossing of advies op reageren. Slechte ervaringen met hen die algemene oplossingen en adviezen geven voor een specifieke vraag en met hen die een te groot ego hebben. Zeer divers. Consultants met een hoge mate van deskundigheid en betrokkenheid totconsultants met weinig inhoud en hoge arrogantie. Zeer grote variatie in resultaten. Afhankelijk van de persoon zelf en wat diegene te bieden heeft. 5. Algemeen 28.24% Is privé. Als medewerker in een organisatie waar door het MT een consultant is ingehuurd. Begeleiding veranderingsproces en introductie SAP . Bij de verzekeringsmaatschappij waar ik werkte waren we bezig met een fusie. Daar hebben we veel samengewerkt met verschillende consultants. Bij een organisatie gewerkt waar af en toe met consultants werd gewerkt op het gebied van project ontwikkeling op luchthaven Schiphol. Bij opening van bankrekening . Binnen het bedrijf waar ik toen werkte. Consultant binnen het bedrijf gehad waar ik werk. Consultants voor outcome mapping. Continue De meeste die ik gezien en gesproken heb hebben niet veel affiniteit met mijn dagelijkse praktijk. Ze zijn wel goed op de hoogte van hun eigen vakgebied. Een aantal keer ingehuurd voor een veranderingstraject. Een aantal projecten bij PwC en Berenschot. Een goede consultant prikkelt, is het niet altijd met je eens en helpt je vanuit een onafhankelijke positie dingen beter te doen. Een veranderingstraject dat is ingezet binnen het bedrijf is aanbevolen door een consultancy kantoor. Het zijn mijn collega's. Ik geef leiding een groep consultant en ben er zelf een geweest :-) Ik heb ervaring met consultants in een veranderingsproces wat doorgevoerd moest worden. Daarna met de introductie van SAP. Ik heb het meest ervaring met technische consultants op ICT gebied. Ik heb 1x een consultancy ingehuurd om advies te krijgen om de financiële prestatie omhoog te krijgen. Ik ken ze alleen persoonlijk, maar niet als consultants Ik stuur ze aan. Ik werk zelf voor een adviesbureau. In onze branche kom ik veel consultants tegen. In bedrijfskundig opzicht hebben wij een aantal consultants over de vloer gehad om interne processen te herstructureren. Daarnaast vanuit mijn deeltijd studie MER les gekregen van een aantal management consultants. Interviews voor het vak consultancy industry, op mijn stage en in de familie loopt er eentje rond. Interviews voor school opdrachten. Op het gebied van commerciële trainingen Adviseur voor administratieve oplossingen op het werk af en toe mee samengewerkt. Projecten met strategisch consultants en IT consultants.

99

Samenwerken in projecten. U bedoelt iemand die bijvoorbeeld advies geeft over een hypotheek ofzo? Vaak vanuit specifieke expertise wordt "product" gebracht. Veranderingstraject laten adviseren. Website bouw. Werk in consultancy-omgeving. Werk op belastingadvieskantoor in aangiftepraktijk. Doe regelmatig beroep op adviseurs/ specialisten. Deze geven juiste adviezen ten behoeve van cliënten. Werk uitbesteden. Werkzaam als ambulant begeleider in het onderwijs heb ik regelmatig te maken met adviseurs. Wij krijgen vaak consultants over de vloer om ons te adviseren over markt kansen en overheidsingrijpen. Wij werken constant met consultants die ons komen adviseren over allerlei aanstaande projecten. Zelf beleidsonderzoeker geweest, raakt aan consultancy. In huidig werk af en toe met een consultant gewerkt. Interim leidinggevende gehad die freelance consultant was . Aansturing en samenwerking. Aansturen van consultants als opdrachtgever aansturen van consultants als managingconsultant inhuren/inkopen. Advies ingewonnen bij een bureau, met betrekking tot het afwikkelen van financiën na het verbreken van een relatie. Advies over hoe te handelen en reageren. Advies gevraagd over nieuw te bouwen project. Adviseren en trainen. Adviseren, presentaties geven, workshops en trainingen geven. Als bedrijf schakelen wij regelmatig consultants in om klanten te adviseren op een specifiek vlak. Hierdoor worden problematieken helder waarvoor wij oplossingen kunnen bieden. Een aantal keer mee gesproken over advisering van een aantal projecten. 6. Consultant  9.41% Ben er zelf een. Heb daarnaast zo'n 14 jaar voor de overheid gewerkt en in die tijd diverse consultants ingehuurd. Ik ben zelf consultant.  2% Ben zelf consultant. Regelmatig contact met technisch consultants. Ben zelf werkzaam als en dus met (collega) consultants. Doe het werk zelf en ken consultants als collega en vanuit mijn leidinggevende functie. Het zijn professionals die enerzijds onafhankelijk zijn en zo willen werken en die anderzijds vanwege competentieontwikkeling en/of omdat ze voor een bedrijf werken zich moeten aanpassen aan spelregels die gelden. Dit laatste is altijd lastig. Ik ben er zelf één :-) Grootste uitdaging is voor veel consultants om echt naar de klant te luisteren en niet meteen te gaan "zenden". Ik ben zelf consultant, dus het zijn mijn directe collega's. Ik ben zelf consultant en werk hiermee. Ik ben zelf Sr. Business Consultant bij Getronics. Ik heb consultants regelmatig bemiddeld en ben nu zelf consultant. Consultants maken zich snel dingen eigen, hebben een pro actieve houding en werken hard en doelgericht. Ik werk zelf binnen consultancyorganisatie. Studie management consulting, een oom is consultant, werk nu bij een consultancy bedrijf. 35 jaar ervaring. Eerst als informatieanalist en vervolgens als business consultant.

3. What is your age? Leeftijd 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Percentage 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 4% 4% 3% 4%

100

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 67 68 69 70 72

3% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 5% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 3% 4% 2% 4% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 0% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

9. What is your living area? Answer

Percentage

Alkmaar NH Almere FLEVOLAND Amersfoort NH Amstelveen UTRECHT Amsterdam NH

1% 0% 1% 1% 6%

Apeldoorn GELDERLAND

1%

101

Arnhem GELDERLAND Asperen UTRECHT Beek LIMBURG Beesd GELDERLAND Beets NH Kortenberg, BUITENLAND Beuningen GELDERLAND Beusekom UTRECHT Beusichem GELDERLAND Borne OVERIJSSEL Boxmeer NOORD BRABANT Breda NOORD BRABANT Brussel BUITENLAND Buren GELDERLAND Castricum NH

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Culemborg GELDERLAND

8%

De Goorn NH Delft ZUID HOLLAND Den Bosch NOORD BRABANT Den Haag ZUID HOLLAND Den Helder NOORD HOLLAND Den Hoorn ZUID HOLLAND Dordrecht ZUID HOLLAND Driebergen UTRECHT Dronten FLEVOLAND Duiven GELDERLAND Ede GELDERLAND Eindhoven NOORD BRABANT Enschede OVERIJSSEL Everdingen GELDERLAND Groningen GRONINGEN Haarlem NOORD HOLLAND Harmelen UTRECHT Hengelo OVERIJSSEL Hilversum UTRECHT Huizen NOORD HOLLAND katwijk ZUID HOLLAND Koewacht ZEELAND Korn NOORD HOLLAND Kwadijk NOORD HOLLAND Langbroek UTRECHT Laren UTRECHT Leeuwarden FRIESLAND Leiden ZUID HOLLAND Leidschendam ZUID HOLLAND Lemmer FRIESLAND Loosdrecht NOORD HOLLAND Maastricht LIMBURG

3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1%

102

Maarssen UTRECHT Maassluis ZUID HOLLAND Madrid BUITENLAND METZ Frankrijk BUITENLAND Minnertsga FRIESLAND Mombasa - Kenya BUITENLAND Nieuwe niedorp NOORD HOLLAND Nieuwegein UTRECHT Nieuwkoop ZUID HOLLAND Nijkerk GELDERLAND Nijmegen NOORD BRABANT Noord holland NOORD HOLLAND Noordwijk ZUID HOLLAND Noordwijkerhout ZUID HOLLAND Nunspeet GELDERLAND Oss NOORD BRABANT Ottersum LIMBURG Oude bildtzijl FRIESLAND Oude Niedorp NOORD HOLLAND Oudewater UTRECHT Pijnacker ZUID HOLLAND Putten GELDERLAND Randstad ZUID HOLLAND Rhenoy GELDERLAND Rijswijk ZUID HOLLAND Rijswijk gld GELDERLAND Rotterdam ZUID HOLLAND 's Hertogenbosch NOORD BRABANT Sassenheim ZUID HOLLAND Schiedam ZUID HOLLAND s"Gravenzande ZUID HOLLAND 's-Hertogenbosch NOORD HOLLAND Sint Oedenrode NOORD BRABANT Sneek FRIESLAND Stellenbosch BUITENLAND Terneuzen ZEELAND Tiel GELDERLAND Tilburg NOORD BRABANT Ude NOORD BRABANT Utrecht UTRECHT Valkenburg LIMBURG Vlijmen NOORD BRABANT Voorschoten ZUID HOLLAND Waarland NOORD HOLLAND Wageningen GELDERLAND Wassenaar ZUID HOLLAND Welsum OVERIJSSEL Westbroek UTRECHT

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 7% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%

103

Zaltbommel GELDERLAND Zoetermeer ZUID HOLLAND Zuid Holland: Noord Holland: Noord Brabant: Gelderland: Friesland: Groningen: Overijssel: Flevoland: Utrecht: Zeeland: Limburg:

0% 3%

26.4 % 15% 8.6% 20% 2.7% 1.8% 1.8% 0.9% 14.5% 3.2% 2.3%

Appendix 3 SPSS Analysis 1.

Prepare the data

In the first step I am going to identify unusual cases; Analyze  descriptive statistics  frequencies There are no unusual cases. All cases are between 1 and 5, as it was intended. There are no items with a positive or negative loading. There was beforehand no intention to ‗lead‘ the respondent or the content of the questions and answers is for every person different; someone can experience it positive and other negative. Thus, it is very personal what you suspects as positive or negative. Thus, there is no need to recode the data. 2. Exploratory Factor Analysis The goal of EFA is data reduction. On basis of the data I required from SPSS, I am going to look which new factors I can identify. Per construct I will take the following steps: Analyze  dimension reduction factor Select all items of the construct as variable descriptives  select univariate description and then Extraction select scree plot I assume that there is an interval scale for each construct. I do the EFA for each separate construct and across the constructs. The first construct Advice: Descriptive Statistics Mean Klanten helpen Het ontwikkelen van nieuwe (markt)kansen voor de klant Het adviseren over korte termijn problemen in de organisatie Het volgen van bewezen procedures Problemen van klanten analyseren Klanten adviseren Onafhankelijk zijn t.o.v. de klant

Std. Deviation

Analysis N

4,36 3,47

,815 1,065

200 200

3,46

1,060

200

2,96

1,153

200

4,46

,856

200

4,59 3,77

,689 1,107

200 200

104

Advies geven door middel van eigen expertise, instrumenten of methodes Het implementeren van oplossingen voor of met de klant Interveniëren in de organisatie van de klant Oplossen van strategische problemen Het hecht samenwerken met de klant

4,03

,905

200

3,79

,985

200

3,19

1,118

200

3,82

,991

200

3,96

,997

200

Communalities Initial Klanten helpen Het ontwikkelen van nieuwe (markt)kansen voor de klant Het adviseren over korte termijn problemen in de organisatie Het volgen van bewezen procedures Problemen van klanten analyseren Klanten adviseren Onafhankelijk zijn t.o.v. de klant Advies geven door middel van eigen expertise, instrumenten of methodes Het implementeren van oplossingen voor of met de klant Interveniëren in de organisatie van de klant Oplossen van strategische problemen Het hecht samenwerken met de klant

Extraction

1,000 1,000

,622 ,672

1,000

,631

1,000

,507

1,000

,666

1,000 1,000

,654 ,502

1,000

,711

1,000

,534

1,000

,617

1,000

,529

1,000

,473

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Total Variance Explained Compo nent 1 2 3 4 5 6

Initial Eigenvalues Total 3,331 1,695 1,089 1,002 ,868 ,799

% of Variance 27,757 14,125 9,073 8,350 7,233 6,658

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Cumulative % 27,757 41,882 50,956 59,306 66,539 73,197

Total 3,331 1,695 1,089 1,002

% of Variance 27,757 14,125 9,073 8,350

Cumulative % 27,757 41,882 50,956 59,306

105

7 8 9 10 11 12

,729 ,687 ,558 ,479 ,412 ,352

6,073 5,724 4,653 3,988 3,431 2,933

79,271 84,995 89,648 93,636 97,067 100,000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Intitial Eigen Values gives the robustness of the construct. Rule of thumb is that the Eigen Value > 1 When Eigen Value< 1, factor worse solution than separate items. So, from component 5 till 12 the Eigen Value is < 1, this is thus a worse solution than separate items.

Component Matrixa Component 1 Klanten helpen Het ontwikkelen van nieuwe (markt)kansen voor de klant

2 ,468 ,580

3 ,369 -,431

4 -,308 -,144

-,415 -,360

106

Het adviseren over korte termijn problemen in de organisatie Het volgen van bewezen procedures Problemen van klanten analyseren Klanten adviseren Onafhankelijk zijn t.o.v. de klant Advies geven door middel van eigen expertise, instrumenten of methodes Het implementeren van oplossingen voor of met de klant Interveniëren in de organisatie van de klant Oplossen van strategische problemen Het hecht samenwerken met de klant

,516

-,249

,467

-,290

,305

-,619

-,029

,171

,556

,494

-,321

,100

,489 ,432

,574 ,238

,275 -,261

-,096 ,437

,437

,302

,649

,085

,627

-,123

,156

,318

,574

-,299

-,032

,443

,589

-,312

-,122

-,264

,649

,057

-,213

-,051

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 4 components extracted. For each construct I take a look at the component matrix and select the items which have a factor loading > 0.4 and cross loading < 0.20. The items selected will be a component. Overall, I don‘t use single item constructs, because they will not have enough value. Within the construct Advice there are 4 components extracted. Items selected within in these components are: 1: 2: Positive; Het ontwikkelen van nieuwe (markt)kansen voor de klant, 9:Het implementeren van oplossingen voor of met de klant,11: Oplossen van strategische problemen, 12:Het hecht samenwerken met de klant 2: none 3: 8: Skills; Advies geven door middel van eigen expertise, instrumenten of methodes  No single item constructs 4: none The second construct Roles Descriptive Statistics Mean Extra paar handen: verleent hulp aan management, waar het management geen tijd voor heeft Procesadviseur: faciliteert het proces Vriendelijke copiloot: een ervaren klankbord Charlatan: een verkoper van gebakken lucht Legitimeerder: ondersteunt bij het nemen van beslissingen Inspirator: het brengen van nieuwe idee?n

Std. Deviation

Analysis N

2,63

1,215

199

3,53

1,058

199

3,52

,968

199

1,78

1,068

199

3,29

1,065

199

4,01

,850

199

107

Advocaat van de duivel: een kritische buitenstaander Hired gun: brengt slecht nieuws dat management zelf niet wilt brengen Coach: leert individuen en teams beter te worden Teambuilder: ontwikkelt teams en samenwerking Netwerker: legt verbinding met andere organisaties Expert: iemand die weet wat er gedaan moet worden

3,83

1,074

199

2,73

1,149

199

3,55

1,090

199

3,17

1,097

199

3,18

1,066

199

3,97

,861

199

Communalities Initial Extra paar handen: verleent hulp aan management, waar het management geen tijd voor heeft Procesadviseur: faciliteert het proces Vriendelijke copiloot: een ervaren klankbord Charlatan: een verkoper van gebakken lucht Legitimeerder: ondersteunt bij het nemen van beslissingen Inspirator: het brengen van nieuwe idee?n Advocaat van de duivel: een kritische buitenstaander Hired gun: brengt slecht nieuws dat management zelf niet wilt brengen Coach: leert individuen en teams beter te worden Teambuilder: ontwikkelt teams en samenwerking Netwerker: legt verbinding met andere organisaties Expert: iemand die weet wat er gedaan moet worden

Extraction

1,000

,602

1,000

,454

1,000

,464

1,000

,626

1,000

,453

1,000

,560

1,000

,656

1,000

,747

1,000

,751

1,000

,745

1,000

,388

1,000

,483

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Total Variance Explained Compo nent 1 2

Initial Eigenvalues Total 2,946 1,623

% of Variance 24,553 13,522

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Cumulative % 24,553 38,076

Total 2,946 1,623

% of Variance 24,553 13,522

Cumulative % 24,553 38,076

108

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1,274 1,087 ,902 ,817 ,711 ,693 ,613 ,514 ,440 ,380

10,618 9,059 7,515 6,805 5,929 5,778 5,107 4,280 3,666 3,167

48,693 57,753 65,268 72,072 78,002 83,779 88,886 93,167 96,833 100,000

1,274 1,087

10,618 9,059

48,693 57,753

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Intitial Eigen Values gives the robustness of the construct. Rule of thumb is that the Eigen Value > 1 When Eigen Value< 1, factor worse solution than separate items. So, from component 5 till 12 the Eigen Value is < 1, this is thus a worse solution than separate items.

Component Matrixa Component 1 Extra paar handen: verleent hulp aan management, waar het management geen tijd voor heeft

2 ,388

3 ,639

4 -,182

,098

109

Procesadviseur: faciliteert het proces Vriendelijke copiloot: een ervaren klankbord Charlatan: een verkoper van gebakken lucht Legitimeerder: ondersteunt bij het nemen van beslissingen Inspirator: het brengen van nieuwe idee?n Advocaat van de duivel: een kritische buitenstaander Hired gun: brengt slecht nieuws dat management zelf niet wilt brengen Coach: leert individuen en teams beter te worden Teambuilder: ontwikkelt teams en samenwerking Netwerker: legt verbinding met andere organisaties Expert: iemand die weet wat er gedaan moet worden

,546

,001

-,311

,244

,506

,149

-,217

,373

-,124

,722

,214

-,209

,589

,259

-,112

,164

,517

-,254

,464

-,112

,237

-,290

,635

,335

,291

,531

,591

-,178

,648

-,263

-,044

-,510

,632

-,192

-,211

-,514

,608

,119

-,058

,022

,531

-,229

,146

,356

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 4 components extracted. For each construct I take a look at the component matrix and select the items which have a factor loading > 0.4 and cross loading < 0.20. The items selected will be a component. Overall, I don‘t use single item constructs. Within the construct Roles there are 4 components extracted. Items selected within in these components are: 1: POSTIVEROLES 2: Processadviseur, 5: Legitimeerder, 9:Coach, 10: Teambuilder, 11: Netwerker, 12: Expert 2: MixROLES1: Extra paar handen, 4: Charlatan 3: 7: Advocaat van de duivel  no single item constructs. 4: none The third construct Competencies Descriptive Statistics Mean Stressbestendig Goed in het coachen Dominant aanwezig Goed in het gebruiken van jargon Goed in het hergebruiken van oplossingen Goed in het vermijden van aansprakelijkheid bij slecht advies Goed in het ontslaan van mensen Goed in plannen Goed in verkopen Resultaatgericht Innovatief

Std. Deviation

Analysis N

4,11 3,83 2,52 2,84

,843 ,964 1,012 1,093

200 200 200 200

3,39

,918

200

2,44

1,197

200

1,98

1,022

200

4,09 3,24 4,37 4,11

,843 1,187 ,752 ,831

200 200 200 200

110

Analytisch Overredend In staat een goede sfeer te creëren Goed in het nemen van beslissingen

4,35 3,40 3,67

,799 ,982 ,989

200 200 200

3,53

1,084

200

Communalities Initial Stressbestendig Goed in het coachen Dominant aanwezig Goed in het gebruiken van jargon Goed in het hergebruiken van oplossingen Goed in het vermijden van aansprakelijkheid bij slecht advies Goed in het ontslaan van mensen Goed in plannen Goed in verkopen Resultaatgericht Innovatief Analytisch Overredend In staat een goede sfeer te creëren Goed in het nemen van beslissingen

Extraction

1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

,629 ,602 ,516 ,585

1,000

,534

1,000

,538

1,000

,546

1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

,683 ,676 ,614 ,585 ,665 ,736 ,708

1,000

,476

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Total Variance Explained Compo nent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Initial Eigenvalues Total 3,190 2,574 1,249 1,065 1,013 ,872 ,828 ,750 ,621 ,601 ,532

% of Variance 21,269 17,163 8,326 7,098 6,757 5,814 5,519 5,001 4,141 4,005 3,548

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Cumulative % 21,269 38,432 46,758 53,856 60,613 66,426 71,945 76,946 81,087 85,091 88,640

Total 3,190 2,574 1,249 1,065 1,013

% of Variance 21,269 17,163 8,326 7,098 6,757

Cumulative % 21,269 38,432 46,758 53,856 60,613

111

12 13 14 15

,512 ,448 ,402 ,342

3,412 2,988 2,682 2,277

92,052 95,040 97,723 100,000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rule of thumb is that the Eigen Value > 1 When Eigen Value< 1, factor worse solution than separate items. So, from component 6 till 15 the Eigen Value is < 1, this is thus a worse solution than separate items.

Component Matrixa Component 1 Stressbestendig Goed in het coachen Dominant aanwezig Goed in het gebruiken van jargon Goed in het hergebruiken van oplossingen Goed in het vermijden van aansprakelijkheid bij slecht advies

2

3

4

5

,449 ,514 ,389 ,463

-,352 -,204 ,592 ,399

-,158 -,490 ,107 ,009

,520 -,234 -,043 ,010

,091 ,034 -,027 ,460

,542

,101

,052

-,452

,152

,264

,656

,066

-,050

,178

112

Goed in het ontslaan van mensen Goed in plannen Goed in verkopen Resultaatgericht Innovatief Analytisch Overredend In staat een goede sfeer te creëren Goed in het nemen van beslissingen

,415

,464

-,167

,141

,332

,394 ,555 ,461 ,483 ,368 ,524 ,470

-,472 ,269 -,569 -,387 -,569 ,352 -,164

,084 ,292 ,220 ,280 ,361 ,385 -,507

,505 ,221 -,019 -,342 -,243 ,154 -,083

,206 -,402 ,170 -,087 ,129 -,407 -,443

,533

,028

-,428

-,003

-,090

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 5 components extracted. There are 5 components extracted 1:Importantcomp; 2:Goed in het coachen, 5:Goed in het hergebruiken van oplossingen, 9:Goed in verkopen, 10:Resultaatgericht, 11:Innovatief, 13:Overredend, 14:In staat een goede sfeer te creëren , 15:Goed in het nemen van beslissingen 2: Negativecomp;3:Dominant aanwezig, 6:Goed in het vermijden van aansprakelijkheid bij slecht advies, 3: none 4: Planning; 8:Goed in plannen no single item constructs 5: none The fourth construct Personal characteristics Descriptive Statistics Mean Is een workaholic Is reflectief Heeft een sterke ruggengraat Is gemotiveerd om het leven van anderen te verbeteren Is manipulatief Is oppervlakkig Brengt ervaring in van elders Werkt graag met cijfers Is nieuwsgierig Is intelligent Wordt gemotiveerd door geld Houdt van de variatie in zijn/haar werk Houdt van uitdagingen Stuurt graag hoge rekeningen Blaast hoog van de toren

Std. Deviation

Analysis N

2,74 3,93 3,80 3,38

1,235 ,899 ,874 1,121

199 199 199 199

2,22 2,03 4,02 3,10 3,97 4,03 2,31

1,180 1,128 ,853 1,033 ,932 ,876 1,191

199 199 199 199 199 199 199

3,80

,936

199

4,14 2,13 1,89

,808 1,251 1,148

199 199 199

Communalities Initial Is een workaholic Is reflectief Heeft een sterke ruggengraat

1,000 1,000 1,000

Extraction ,481 ,491 ,511

113

Is gemotiveerd om het leven van anderen te verbeteren Is manipulatief Is oppervlakkig Brengt ervaring in van elders Werkt graag met cijfers Is nieuwsgierig Is intelligent Wordt gemotiveerd door geld Houdt van de variatie in zijn/haar werk Houdt van uitdagingen Stuurt graag hoge rekeningen Blaast hoog van de toren

1,000

,300

1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

,615 ,588 ,638 ,656 ,481 ,473 ,618

1,000

,661

1,000 1,000 1,000

,721 ,646 ,725

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Total Variance Explained Compo nent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Initial Eigenvalues Total 3,876 2,305 1,302 1,123 ,995 ,947 ,748 ,654 ,635 ,562 ,490 ,452 ,400 ,300 ,211

% of Variance 25,837 15,370 8,677 7,486 6,633 6,313 4,989 4,359 4,235 3,745 3,265 3,016 2,670 2,000 1,406

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Cumulative % 25,837 41,207 49,884 57,371 64,003 70,316 75,305 79,664 83,899 87,644 90,909 93,924 96,594 98,594 100,000

Total 3,876 2,305 1,302 1,123

% of Variance 25,837 15,370 8,677 7,486

Cumulative % 25,837 41,207 49,884 57,371

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Intitial Eigen Values gives the robustness of the construct. Rule of thumb is that the Eigen Value > 1 When Eigen Value< 1, factor worse solution than separate items. So, from component 5 till 15 the Eigen Value is < 1, this is thus a worse solution than separate items.

114

Component Matrixa Component 1 Is een workaholic Is reflectief Heeft een sterke ruggengraat Is gemotiveerd om het leven van anderen te verbeteren Is manipulatief Is oppervlakkig Brengt ervaring in van elders Werkt graag met cijfers Is nieuwsgierig Is intelligent Wordt gemotiveerd door geld Houdt van de variatie in zijn/haar werk Houdt van uitdagingen Stuurt graag hoge rekeningen Blaast hoog van de toren

2

3

4

,452 -,469 -,329 -,306

,441 ,259 ,571 ,391

-,227 ,112 ,004 -,038

-,175 ,438 ,278 ,228

,704 ,739 -,223 ,160 -,425 -,221 ,720

,288 ,175 ,539 ,417 ,486 ,405 ,258

,021 ,008 ,418 -,631 -,247 -,506 ,159

,191 ,103 ,351 -,241 -,065 ,071 -,090

-,183

,408

,404

-,546

-,345 ,780 ,790

,523 ,183 ,219

,351 ,054 ,178

-,453 ,045 ,144

115

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 4 components extracted. For each construct I take a look at the component matrix and select the items which have a factor loading > 0.4 and cross loading < 0.20. The items selected will be a component. Overall, I don‘t use single item constructs. Within the construct Personal characteristics there are 4 components extracted. Items selected within in these components are: 1:NEGATIVECHARAC: 5: Is manipulatief, 6: Is oppervlakkig, 11: Wordt gemotiveerd door geld, 14: Stuurt graag hoge rekeningen, 15: Blaast hoog van de toren. 2: POSITIVECHARAC: 3: Heeft een sterke ruggengraat, 8: Werkt graag met cijfers, 9: Is nieuwsgierig, 10: Is intelligent, 12: Houdt van uitdagingen. 3: NONE 4: 2: Is reflectief  none single item constructs. The fifth construct Effectiveness Descriptive Statistics Mean Helpen organisaties te verbeteren Verbeteren de financiële prestaties van het bedrijf Helpen reorganisaties uit te voeren Brengen spiritualiteit in het bedrijf Helpen bij het implementeren van advies Realiseren van veranderingen in het gedrag van mensen in de organisatie

Std. Deviation

Analysis N

4,06

,848

199

3,61

,919

199

3,68

,907

199

2,57

1,182

199

3,61

,930

199

3,53

1,024

199

Communalities Initial Helpen organisaties te verbeteren Verbeteren de financiële prestaties van het bedrijf Helpen reorganisaties uit te voeren Brengen spiritualiteit in het bedrijf Helpen bij het implementeren van advies Realiseren van veranderingen in het gedrag van mensen in de organisatie

Extraction

1,000

,588

1,000

,550

1,000

,493

1,000

,757

1,000

,413

1,000

,628

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Total Variance Explained Compo

Initial Eigenvalues

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

116

nent 1 2 3 4 5 6

Total

% of Variance

2,395 1,033 ,816 ,666 ,626 ,464

Cumulative %

39,918 17,217 13,600 11,094 10,439 7,731

39,918 57,135 70,735 81,829 92,269 100,000

Total 2,395 1,033

% of Variance 39,918 17,217

Cumulative % 39,918 57,135

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rule of thumb is that the Eigen Value > 1 When Eigen Value< 1, factor worse solution than separate items. So, from component 3 till 6 the Eigen Value is < 1, this is thus a worse solution than separate items.

Component Matrixa Component 1 Helpen organisaties te verbeteren Verbeteren de financiële prestaties van het bedrijf Helpen reorganisaties uit te voeren

2 ,725

-,248

,632

-,388

,688

-,139

117

Brengen spiritualiteit in het bedrijf Helpen bij het implementeren van advies Realiseren van veranderingen in het gedrag van mensen in de organisatie

,401

,772

,631

-,123

,661

,437

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 2 components extracted. There are 2 components extracted 1:Positiveeffects; 1: Helpen organisaties te verbeteren, 2:Verbeteren de financiële prestaties van het bedrijf, 3:Helpen reorganisaties uit te voeren, 5:Helpen bij het implementeren van advies, 6:Realiseren van veranderingen in het gedrag van mensen in de organisatie 2:Unimportanteffect; 4:Brengen spiritualiteit in het bedrijf  no single item constructs. Part 3: Scale reliability First I analyzed the reliability of the whole questionnaire: Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha ,850

N of Items 66

The Cronbach‘s Alpha is 0,850 which means that the test is reliable. Within the following step I am going to analyze the reliability of each construct. 1. Advice Analyze  scale  reliability analysis The reliability of the whole construct is given below: Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items

,751

,755

N of Items 12

Cronbach‘s Alpha is higher than 0,7, which mean the construct Advice is reliable. Results with the items selected in the previous step Statistics  scale if item deleted For the first construct Advice: Select as items: 1: 2: Het ontwikkelen van nieuwe (markt)kansen voor de klant, 8: Advies geven door middel van eigen expertise, instrumenten of methodes, 9:Het implementeren van oplossingen voor of met de klant,11: Oplossen van strategische problemen, 12:Het hecht samenwerken met de klant Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha ,647

N of Items 5 Item-Total Statistics

118

Scale Mean if Item Deleted Het ontwikkelen van nieuwe (markt)kansen voor de klant Advies geven door middel van eigen expertise, instrumenten of methodes Het implementeren van oplossingen voor of met de klant Oplossen van strategische problemen Het hecht samenwerken met de klant

Scale Variance if Corrected ItemItem Deleted Total Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

15,60

6,725

,415

,587

15,04

8,159

,227

,666

15,28

6,823

,458

,566

15,25

6,749

,470

,559

15,11

6,898

,432

,578

Analyze  scale  reliability analysis I deleted here q8 because the Corrected Item-Total Correlation is lower than 0.3 and the Cronbach‘s Alpha if Item Deleted is higher than the overall Cronbach‘s Alpha. Deleting this constructs should increase the reliability. Results with 1: 2: Het ontwikkelen van nieuwe (markt)kansen voor de klant, 9:Het implementeren van oplossingen voor of met de klant,11: Oplossen van strategische problemen, 12:Het hecht samenwerken met de klant Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha

N of Items

,666

4

Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Het ontwikkelen van nieuwe (markt)kansen voor de klant Het implementeren van oplossingen voor of met de klant Oplossen van strategische problemen Het hecht samenwerken met de klant

Scale Variance if Corrected ItemItem Deleted Total Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

11,57

4,769

,485

,573

11,25

5,354

,402

,629

11,22

5,077

,470

,584

11,08

5,200

,433

,609

Cronbach‘s alpha is increased, but still under 0.7, so deleting a item and create a new scale will not improve the reliability a lot. 2. Roles

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha ,671

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items ,676

N of Items 12

119

Cronbach‘s Alpha is lower than 0.7, so the construct role is not very reliable. 1: POSTIVEROLES 2: Processadviseur, 5: Legitimeerder, 9:Coach, 10: Teambuilder, 11: Netwerker, 12: Expert 2: MIXROLES 1: Extra paar handen, 4: Charlatan 3: 7: Advocaat van de duivel  no single item constructs. 4: none Component 1: POSITIVEROLES Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items

,686

N of Items

,684

6 Item-Total Statistics Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected ItemTotal Correlation

17,16

11,489

,363

,134

,662

17,41

11,546

,350

,135

,667

17,14

10,384

,518

,380

,608

17,52

10,483

,497

,370

,616

17,52

11,150

,411

,171

,646

16,72

12,324

,355

,157

,664

Scale Mean if Item Deleted Procesadviseur: faciliteert het proces Legitimeerder: ondersteunt bij het nemen van beslissingen Coach: leert individuen en teams beter te worden Teambuilder: ontwikkelt teams en samenwerking Netwerker: legt verbinding met andere organisaties Expert: iemand die weet wat er gedaan moet worden

Squared Multiple Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

Component 2:MIXROLES Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items

,308

N of Items

,311

2

Totally not reliable, which is logic, because the items within this component are not related to eachother. 3.

Competences

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha ,727

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items ,728

N of Items 15

The Cronbach‘s Alpha of the whole construct is reliable because it is higher than 0.7. Reliability Statistics

120

Cronbach's Alpha

N of Items

,666

8

Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Goed in het coachen Goed in het hergebruiken van oplossingen Goed in verkopen Resultaatgericht Innovatief Overredend Goed in het nemen van beslissingen In staat een goede sfeer te creëren

Scale Variance if Corrected ItemItem Deleted Total Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

25,69 26,13

14,555 14,707

,357 ,364

,636 ,634

26,28 25,15 25,41 26,12 25,99

13,529 15,706 15,087 14,602 13,834

,363 ,308 ,361 ,339 ,384

,637 ,648 ,636 ,640 ,629

25,85

14,195

,394

,626

The corrected item-total Correlation are all above 0.3 and the Cronbach‘s alpha if item deleted is under the Cronbach‘s alpha overall. So, I don‘t delete items here, but the Cronbachs alpha is under 0.7 which is not reliable. Construct 2: 3:Dominant aanwezig, 6:Goed in het vermijden van aansprakelijkheid bij slecht advies, Analyze  Scale  reliability analyzes (select scale if item deleted) Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha

N of Items

,510

2

Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Goed in het vermijden van aansprakelijkheid bij slecht advies Dominant aanwezig

Scale Variance if Corrected ItemItem Deleted Total Correlation

2,52

1,025

,347 .a

2,44

1,433

,347 .a

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

a. The value is negative due to a negative average covariance among items. This violates reliability model assumptions. You may want to check item codings. Not a reliable component. 4. Personal characteristics

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items

N of Items

121

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items

,630

N of Items

,611

15

The Cronbach‘s Alpha of the whole construct is lower than 0.7, so this construct is not reliable. 1:NEGATIVECHARAC: Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items

,858

N of Items

,858

5

Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Is oppervlakkig Is manipulatief Wordt gemotiveerd door geld Stuurt graag hoge rekeningen Blaast hoog van de toren

Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Squared Multiple Item Deleted Total Correlation Correlation

8,55 8,36 8,27 8,45 8,68

15,299 14,879 15,004 14,057 14,369

,640 ,653 ,628 ,703 ,750

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

,476 ,497 ,436 ,579 ,600

,837 ,834 ,840 ,821 ,809

A high Cronbach‘s Alpha within this component, so these items are reliable and highly correlated to eachother. 2: POSITIVECHARAC: Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items

,562

N of Items

,568

5

Item-Total Statistics Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected ItemTotal Correlation

15,94 15,23

5,289 5,350

,238 ,340

,080 ,132

,564 ,497

15,07 15,01 14,90

4,920 5,338 5,687

,412 ,342 ,298

,201 ,141 ,132

,452 ,496 ,521

Scale Mean if Item Deleted Werkt graag met cijfers Heeft een sterke ruggengraat Is nieuwsgierig Is intelligent Houdt van uitdagingen

Squared Multiple Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

The corrected item-total Correlation are not all above 0.3 and the Cronbach‘s alpha if item deleted will increase if item ‗werkt graag met cijfers‘ will increase if it will be deleted. So, I first delete item ‗werkt graag met cijfers.

122

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items

,564

N of Items

,562

4

Cronbach‘s Alpha increased a bit, but not enough, so I would not recommend to delete this item. 5.

Effectiveness: Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items

,676

N of Items

,690

6 Item-Total Statistics Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected ItemTotal Correlation

17,46

9,815

,406

,194

,635

17,54

9,058

,477

,272

,608

18,50

9,766

,255

,114

,700

17,39

9,632

,460

,244

,618

17,46

9,896

,399

,252

,637

17,02

9,712

,495

,316

,609

Scale Mean if Item Deleted Helpen bij het implementeren van advies Realiseren van veranderingen in het gedrag van mensen in de organisatie Brengen spiritualiteit in het bedrijf Helpen reorganisaties uit te voeren Verbeteren de financi?le prestaties van het bedrijf Helpen organisaties te verbeteren

Squared Multiple Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

Cronbach‘s Alpha is not high enough within this construct. Looking to Corrected Item-total correlation ‗Brengen spiritualiteit in het bedrijf‘ is below 0,3 so could be removed, which will increase Cronbach‘s Alpha. Component 1 :1: Helpen organisaties te verbeteren, 2:Verbeteren de financiële prestaties van het bedrijf, 3:Helpen reorganisaties uit te voeren, 5:Helpen bij het implementeren van advies, 6:Realiseren van veranderingen in het gedrag van mensen in de organisatie Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha ,700

N of Items 5

Item-Total Statistics

123

Scale Mean if Item Deleted Helpen organisaties te verbeteren Verbeteren de financiële prestaties van het bedrijf Helpen reorganisaties uit te voeren Helpen bij het implementeren van advies Realiseren van veranderingen in het gedrag van mensen in de organisatie

Scale Variance if Corrected ItemItem Deleted Total Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

14,44

6,692

,537

,620

14,88

6,911

,416

,667

14,81

6,637

,493

,635

14,88

6,790

,436

,659

14,96

6,569

,409

,673

The corrected item-total Correlation are all above 0.3 and the Cronbach‘s alpha if item deleted is under the Cronbach‘s alpha overall. So, I don‘t delete items here, but the Cronbachs alpha is even to 0.7 which gives reliability. PART 4 REGRESSION Analyze  Regression  Lineair Options selected: R squared change and collinearity diagnostics Model Summary Change Statistics Model

R

1

,498a

R Square ,248

Adjusted R Std. Error of Square the Estimate ,199

,53869

R Square Change ,248

F Change 5,105

df1

df2 12

186

Sig. F Change ,000

First each construct will be separately related to the dependent variable Effectiveness. There can be take a look on the strength of the relationship and the significance. Dependent: Effectiveness Independent: Advice

124

a.

Predictors: (Constant), Het hecht samenwerken met dea klant, Het volgen van bewezen procedures, Coefficients Advies geven door middel van eigen expertise, instrumenten of methodes, Onafhankelijk zijn t.o.v de klant, Klanten helpen, Het adviseren over korte termijn problemen in de organisatie, Oplossen van strategische problemen, Interveni?ren in de organisatie van de klant , Klanten adviseren, Het implementeren van oplossingen voor of met de klant, Problemen van klanten analyseren, Het ontwikkelen van nieuwe (markt)kansen voor de klant ANOVAb

Model 1

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

Regression

17,775

12

1,481

Residual

53,975

186

,290

Total

71,750

198

F

Sig. ,000a

5,105

a. Predictors: (Constant), Het hecht samenwerken met de klant, Het volgen van bewezen procedures, Advies geven door middel van eigen expertise, instrumenten of methodes, Onafhankelijk zijn t.o.v de klant, Klanten helpen, Het adviseren over korte termijn problemen in de organisatie, Oplossen van strategische problemen, Interveni?ren in de organisatie van de klant , Klanten adviseren, Het implementeren van oplossingen voor of met de klant, Problemen van klanten analyseren, Het ontwikkelen van nieuwe (markt)kansen voor de klant b. Dependent Variable: Effectiveness Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients Model 1

B

Standardized Coefficients

Std. Error

(Constant)

1,848

,338

Klanten helpen

-,052

,053

Het ontwikkelen van nieuwe (markt)kansen voor de klant

,008

Het adviseren over korte termijn problemen in de organisatie

Beta

Collinearity Statistics t

Sig.

Tolerance

VIF

5,466

,000

-,070

-,970

,333

,770

1,298

,046

,015

,178

,859

,608

1,646

,006

,042

,011

,146

,884

,732

1,365

Het volgen van bewezen procedures

,029

,037

,057

,794

,428

,796

1,257

Problemen van klanten analyseren

,022

,057

,031

,385

,700

,613

1,630

Klanten adviseren

,045

,069

,052

,655

,513

,647

1,546

Onafhankelijk zijn t.o.v de klant

-,020

,038

-,037

-,534

,594

,822

1,216

Advies geven door middel van eigen expertise, instrumenten of methodes

,020

,049

,030

,407

,684

,746

1,341

Het implementeren van oplossingen voor of met de klant

,057

,047

,094

1,225

,222

,683

1,465

Interveni?ren in de organisatie van de klant

,077

,041

,143

1,862

,064

,691

1,448

Oplossen van strategische problemen

,133

,047

,219

2,819

,005

,667

1,498

Het hecht samenwerken met de klant

,120

,046

,198

2,580

,011

,685

1,459

a. Dependent Variable: Effectiveness

125

Unstandardized Coefficients Model

B

1 (Constant)

Standardized Coefficients

Std. Error

Beta

Collinearity Statistics t

Sig. Tolerance

VIF

1,848

,338

5,466 ,000

-,052

,053

-,070 -,970 ,333

,770 1,298

Het ontwikkelen van nieuwe (markt)kansen voor de klant

,008

,046

,015 ,178 ,859

,608 1,646

Het adviseren over korte termijn problemen in de organisatie

,006

,042

,011 ,146 ,884

,732 1,365

Het volgen van bewezen procedures

,029

,037

,057 ,794 ,428

,796 1,257

Problemen van klanten analyseren

,022

,057

,031 ,385 ,700

,613 1,630

Klanten adviseren

,045

,069

,052 ,655 ,513

,647 1,546

-,020

,038

-,037 -,534 ,594

,822 1,216

Advies geven door middel van eigen expertise, instrumenten of methodes

,020

,049

,030 ,407 ,684

,746 1,341

Het implementeren van oplossingen voor of met de klant

,057

,047

,094 1,225 ,222

,683 1,465

Interveni?ren in de organisatie van de klant

,077

,041

,143 1,862 ,064

,691 1,448

Oplossen van strategische problemen

,133

,047

,219 2,819 ,005

,667 1,498

Het hecht samenwerken met de klant

,120

,046

,198 2,580 ,011

,685 1,459

Klanten helpen

Onafhankelijk zijn t.o.v de klant

a. Dependent Variable: Effectiveness Dependent: Effectiveness Independent: Roles Model Summary Change Statistics Model

R

R Square ,513a

1

Adjusted R Std. Error of Square the Estimate

,263

,215

R Square Change

,53192

F Change

,263

5,504

df1 12

df2 185

Sig. F Change ,000

a. Predictors: (Constant), Extra paar handen: verleent hulp aan management, waar het management geen tijd voor heeft, Inspirator: het brengen van nieuwe idee?n, Charlatan: een verkoper van gebakken lucht, Vriendelijke copiloot: een ervaren klankbord, Advocaat van de duivel: een kritische buitenstaander, Teambuilder: ontwikkelt teams en samenwerking, Expert: iemand die weet wat er gedaan moet worden, Procesadviseur: faciliteert het proces, Netwerker: legt verbinding met andere organisaties, Hired gun: brengt slecht nieuws dat management zelf niet wilt brengen, Legitimeerder: ondersteunt bij het nemen van beslissingen, Coach: leert individuen en teams beter te worden ANOVAb Sum of Squares

Model 1

df

Mean Square

Regression

18,689

12

1,557

Residual

52,344

185

,283

Total

71,033

197

F

Sig. 5,504

,000a

126

a. Predictors: (Constant), Extra paar handen: verleent hulp aan management, waar het management geen tijd voor heeft, Inspirator: het brengen van nieuwe idee?n, Charlatan: een verkoper van gebakken lucht, Vriendelijke copiloot: een ervaren klankbord, Advocaat van de duivel: een kritische buitenstaander, Teambuilder: ontwikkelt teams en samenwerking, Expert: iemand die weet wat er gedaan moet worden, Procesadviseur: faciliteert het proces, Netwerker: legt verbinding met andere organisaties, Hired gun: brengt slecht nieuws dat management zelf niet wilt brengen, Legitimeerder: ondersteunt bij het nemen van beslissingen, Coach: leert individuen en teams beter te worden b. Dependent Variable: Effectiveness Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients Model 1

B (Constant)

Standardized Coefficients

Std. Error

Beta

Collinearity Statistics t

Sig. Tolerance

VIF

2,037

,292

Teambuilder: ontwikkelt teams en samenwerking

,040

,044

,074

,918 ,360

,615

1,625

Netwerker: legt verbinding met andere organisaties

,008

,040

,015

,206 ,837

,769

1,301

Expert: iemand die weet wat er gedaan moet worden

,033

,050

,048

,667 ,505

,777

1,288

Coach: leert individuen en teams beter te worden

,168

,045

,304 3,717 ,000

,595

1,682

Hired gun: brengt slecht nieuws dat management zelf niet wilt brengen

,012

,038

,023

,311 ,756

,737

1,357

Advocaat van de duivel: een kritische buitenstaander

,030

,038

,054

,803 ,423

,870

1,150

Inspirator: het brengen van nieuwe idee?n

,025

,052

,035

,473 ,637

,742

1,348

Legitimeerder: ondersteunt bij het nemen van beslissingen

,037

,042

,065

,874 ,383

,720

1,390

Charlatan: een verkoper van gebakken lucht

-,067

,040

-,119

- ,098 1,663

,775

1,290

,070

,044

,113 1,607 ,110

,804

1,243

-,024

,041

-,043 -,597 ,551

,775

1,290

,070

,037

,142 1,905 ,058

,719

1,391

Vriendelijke copiloot: een ervaren klankbord Procesadviseur: faciliteert het proces Extra paar handen: verleent hulp aan management, waar het management geen tijd voor heeft

6,968 ,000

a. Dependent Variable: Effectiveness Dependent: Effectiveness Independent: Competences Model Summary

127

Change Statistics Model

R

R Square ,530a

1

Adjusted R Std. Error of Square the Estimate

,281

,222

R Square Change

,53102

F Change

,281

df1

4,763

15

df2

Sig. F Change

183

,000

a. Predictors: (Constant), Goed in het nemen van beslissingen, Analytisch, Goed in het gebruiken van jargon, Goed in verkopen, stressbestendig, In staat een goede sfeer te cre?ren , Dominant aanwezig, Innovatief, Goed in het ontslaan van mensen, Goed in het hergebruiken van oplossingen, Goed in plannen, Goed in het coachen, Goed in het vermijden van aansprakelijkheid bij slecht advies, Overredend, Resultaatgericht ANOVAb Sum of Squares

Model 1

df

Mean Square

Regression

20,148

15

1,343

Residual

51,603

183

,282

Total

71,750

198

F

Sig. 4,763

,000a

a. Predictors: (Constant), Goed in het nemen van beslissingen, Analytisch, Goed in het gebruiken van jargon, Goed in verkopen, stressbestendig, In staat een goede sfeer te cre?ren , Dominant aanwezig, Innovatief, Goed in het ontslaan van mensen, Goed in het hergebruiken van oplossingen, Goed in plannen, Goed in het coachen, Goed in het vermijden van aansprakelijkheid bij slecht advies, Overredend, Resultaatgericht b. Dependent Variable: Effectiveness Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients Model 1

B (Constant)

Standardized Coefficients

Std. Error

Beta

Collinearity Statistics t

Sig. Tolerance

VIF

2,064

,344

5,993 ,000

Goed in verkopen

,040

,039

,079 1,041 ,299

,675

1,481

Goed in plannen

-,034

,053

-,047 -,632 ,528

,710

1,408

Goed in het ontslaan van mensen

,058

,044

,098 1,321 ,188

,715

1,398

Goed in het vermijden van aansprakelijkheid bij slecht advies

,009

,038

,018

,236 ,814

,686

1,457

-,008

,048

-,012 -,165 ,870

,725

1,379

stressbestendig

,061

,052

,085 1,171 ,243

,745

1,342

Goed in het coachen

,163

,047

,261 3,429 ,001

,679

1,472

Dominant aanwezig

,051

,047

,086 1,094 ,275

,630

1,587

-,017

,041

-,031 -,412 ,681

,699

1,431

Innovatief

,087

,054

,121 1,622 ,106

,711

1,406

Analytisch

-,044

,059

-,059 -,747 ,456

,635

1,576

,000

,065

,000 -,002 ,999

,600

1,667

-,111

,049

- ,024 2,276

,623

1,605

,053

,044

,088 1,200 ,232

,732

1,365

Goed in het hergebruiken van oplossingen

Goed in het gebruiken van jargon

Resultaatgericht Overredend In staat een goede sfeer te cre?ren

-,181

128

Goed in het nemen van beslissingen

,115

,040

,207 2,868 ,005

,752

1,330

a. Dependent Variable: Effectiveness Dependent: Effectiveness Independent: Personal characteristics Model Summary Change Statistics Model

R

1

,422a

R Square

Adjusted R Std. Error of Square the Estimate

,178

,111

R Square Change

,56502

F Change

,178

df1

2,635

df2 15

Sig. F Change

182

,001

a. Predictors: (Constant), Is reflectief, Werkt graag met cijfers, Houdt van de variatie in zijn/haar werk, Blaast hoog van de toren, Is gemotiveerd om het leven van anderen te verbeteren, Brengt ervaring in van elders, Is intelligent , Is nieuwsgierig, Is een workaholic, Heeft een sterke ruggengraat, Houdt van uitdagingen, Is oppervlakkig , Wordt gemotiveerd door geld, Is manipulatief, Stuurt graag hoge rekeningen ANOVAb Sum of Squares

Model 1

Mean Square

df

Regression

12,618

15

,841

Residual

58,103

182

,319

Total

70,722

197

F

Sig.

2,635

,001a

a. Predictors: (Constant), Is reflectief, Werkt graag met cijfers, Houdt van de variatie in zijn/haar werk, Blaast hoog van de toren, Is gemotiveerd om het leven van anderen te verbeteren, Brengt ervaring in van elders, Is intelligent , Is nieuwsgierig, Is een workaholic, Heeft een sterke ruggengraat, Houdt van uitdagingen, Is oppervlakkig , Wordt gemotiveerd door geld, Is manipulatief, Stuurt graag hoge rekeningen b. Dependent Variable: Effectiveness Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients Model 1

B (Constant)

Standardized Coefficients

Std. Error

2,127

,375

,129

,039

-,028

Houdt van de variatie in zijn/haar werk Houdt van uitdagingen

Beta

Collinearity Statistics t

Sig.

Tolerance

VIF

5,666

,000

,265

3,302

,001

,701

1,426

,048

-,056

-,581

,562

,488

2,048

,005

,050

,007

,093

,926

,753

1,328

,130

,064

,176

2,035

,043

,607

1,649

Stuurt graag hoge rekeningen

-,082

,052

-,172

-1,585

,115

,382

2,619

Blaast hoog van de toren

-,037

,058

-,070

-,631

,529

,364

2,748

,075

,051

,110

1,468

,144

,809

1,236

Is nieuwsgierig

-,074

,051

-,115

-1,459

,146

,722

1,386

Werkt graag met cijfers

,009

,045

,015

,193

,847

,775

1,291

Is oppervlakkig

,019

,052

,036

,374

,709

,476

2,102

Is een workaholic Wordt gemotiveerd door geld

Is intelligent

129

Is manipulatief

,058

,049

,114

1,179

,240

,482

2,075

Is gemotiveerd om het leven van anderen te verbeteren

,020

,040

,037

,488

,626

,800

1,251

Heeft een sterke ruggengraat

,032

,056

,047

,577

,565

,684

1,462

Brengt ervaring in van elders

,002

,056

,003

,043

,966

,703

1,422

Is reflectief

,100

,052

,150

1,929

,055

,744

1,344

a. Dependent Variable: Effectiveness Overall, can be concluded that the strength of the relationship R, which must be between -1 and 1 is in all cases positive, but also not very strong in all cases. The adjusted R square shows how much of the variance of the dependent variable is explained by the independent variable. Also this is in all cases relatively low. Dependent: Effectiveness Independent: all items Model Summary Change Statistics Model

R

1

,486a

Adjusted R Std. Error of Square the Estimate

R Square ,236

,221

R Square Change

,52759

F Change

,236

df1

14,867

Sig. F Change

df2 4

192

,000

a. Predictors: (Constant), PERSCHARAC, ADVICE, ROLES, COMPETENCES ANOVAb Model

Sum of Squares

1

df

Mean Square

F

Regression

16,553

4

4,138

Residual

53,443

192

,278

Total

69,995

196

Sig. ,000a

14,867

a. Predictors: (Constant), PERSCHARAC, ADVICE, ROLES, COMPETENCES b. Dependent Variable: Effectiveness Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Model

B

Std. Error

Collinearity Statistics

Beta

t

Sig.

Tolerance

VIF

1 (Constant)

,867

,398

2,177 ,031

ADVICE

,320

,098

,270 3,277 ,001

,584

1,713

ROLES

,261

,096

,215 2,714 ,007

,634

1,578

COMPETENCES

,099

,115

,073 ,860 ,391

,550

1,819

PERSCHARAC

,075

,105

,052 ,708 ,480

,736

1,358

a. Dependent Variable: Effectiveness Collinearity Diagnosticsa Model Dimension Eigenvalue 1

Condition Index

Variance Proportions (Constant) ADVICE ROLES COMPETENCES PERSCHARAC

1

4,959

1,000

,00

,00

,00

,00

,00

2

,018

16,676

,01

,14

,15

,00

,36

3

,010

21,870

,11

,21

,77

,02

,07

4

,008

25,010

,46

,00

,03

,64

,00

130

5

,005

31,421

,42

,65

,04

,34

,57

a. Dependent Variable: Effectiveness

131