When to hire a consultant and when not to

Ruth has turned down work. Not often, but it happens. Sometimes a potential client describes a situation where the most honest thing she can say is: you do not need a consultant, you need to make a decision and live with it for six months. This is a guide to telling the difference.

When outside help is genuinely useful ¶

A consultant is useful when the problem requires a perspective that nobody inside the organisation can provide without also having a stake in the outcome. If the question is 'should we restructure the team?', the people inside the team cannot answer it neutrally. An outside view is not just useful there; it is probably necessary.

Outside help is also useful when the organisation has the answer but cannot get to it because of internal dynamics. Sometimes the most valuable thing a consultant does is create the conditions for a conversation that was not happening.

When it is probably not worth the fee ¶

If the problem is that you have not yet made a decision you already know you need to make, a consultant will not make it for you. Ruth has sat in enough intake calls to recognise this pattern: the client knows what they need to do, they are hoping someone external will either validate it or take responsibility for it. Neither is a good use of a consulting fee.

Similarly, if the organisation is not ready to act on any output, the timing is wrong. A strategy document that sits in a folder because the team is too stretched to implement anything is not a strategy. It is a comfort object.

A simple test ¶

Before hiring anyone, Ruth suggests asking: what would we do differently if we had this person's input? If the honest answer is 'probably nothing yet', wait. If the answer is 'we would make a decision we have been avoiding', that is a good reason to proceed.

This is not a pitch. Some situations genuinely do not need a consultant. Knowing which is which is the first useful thing an honest consultant can tell you.