Collaborating with Other Consultants

Many boutique consulting firms bring in high-profile Partners from larger, well-known firms, anticipating a swift boost in business. However, these hires often face unexpected challenges in transferring revenue from their previous roles. Partners coming from large consultancies are used to a very different environment. They often lack the skill set needed to thrive in a smaller firm, where success depends more on proactive business generation than on relying on the firm’s established infrastructure and inbound client requests. Adjusting to a firm with less brand recognition requires them to sell more actively, often to clients who may view a lesser-known brand as a greater risk. Moreover, restrictive non-compete clauses and client ownership structures can prevent them from bringing clients over immediately, even when strong relationships exist. A thorough, strategic hiring process can mitigate these risks. Beyond assessing the Partner’s credentials and track record, it’s crucial to understand how they’ll adapt to a smaller firm and realistically gauge how much of their previous client work they can actually transfer. A rigorous evaluation process helps uncover potential obstacles early, ensuring that both the firm and the new Partner are realistic about what can actually be delivered. What’s more, success in these hires often requires a long-term strategy. Rather than expecting instant results, support the new Partner in leveraging their industry expertise and reputation to reengage existing clients in fresh ways and open up new opportunities that align with the firm’s strengths. Without a careful hiring process and managed expectations, these moves often fall short of their potential. But with the right foundation, a new Partner can be a powerful asset, driving value beyond the immediate revenue transfer.

During one of my early consulting engagements, I was staffed on a project where the client had extremely high expectations. Every meeting felt intense. Every deliverable felt urgent. As a new consultant, I constantly worried about making mistakes. One day, during a late-night working session, my manager looked at me stressing over a slide and said something I still remember clearly: "Clients do not expect perfection. They expect progress." The next morning, we presented a draft that was not flawless but moved the conversation forward. And the client was happy. Not because it was perfect, but because it gave them clarity on what to do next. Over the years, I have seen this pattern repeatedly. 1. Clients want direction more than decoration. 2. They want clarity more than complexity. 3. They want someone who can take messy problems and give them a path, even if it is not fully polished yet. Because the polishing can happen later. Consulting teaches you that going ahead matters more than perfect preparation. The goal is not to create the perfect slide. The goal is to help the client make the next decision. And once you internalize that, the work becomes clearer, calmer, and far more impactful.

Workplace conflict: your brain takes 0.07s to react. Your career takes years to recover. The truth is that one wrong word can: ↳ Break trust ↳ Limit your influence ↳ Close off opportunities But many professionals unknowingly use phrases that trigger resistance. Here's what works instead: 1. Instead of "That's not my job" ↳ "I see this matters. Let's figure out how to get it done." ↳ Shows teamwork while maintaining boundaries 2. Replace "We've always done it this way" ↳ "I see why this feels right. Shall we explore ideas?" ↳ Positions you as innovative, not stuck 3. Never say "That's not true" ↳ "I see it differently. Let me share my perspective." ↳ Opens dialogue instead of creating defense 4. Drop "You should have..." ↳ "Next time, let's try this approach." ↳ Future-focused, not blame-focused 5. Instead of "I don't have time" ↳ "This is important. Can we schedule time to discuss?" ↳ Shows respect while setting boundaries 6. Never say "Calm down" ↳ "I see this is frustrating. Let's take a moment to reset." ↳ Validates emotions while moving to solutions 7. Drop "You don't understand" ↳ "Maybe we're seeing this differently. Can we clarify what we both need?" ↳ Invites collaboration, not confrontation 8. Replace "It's not a big deal" ↳ "I see why this matters to you. Let's figure out a solution." ↳ Acknowledges impact, builds trust 9. Avoid "Let's agree to disagree" ↳ "We may see this differently, let's see how best to move forward?" ↳ Keeps momentum toward solutions 10. Never say "I'm done with this" ↳ "Let's take a break and revisit with clear minds." ↳ Professional pause, not emotional exit 11. Drop "I'm just being honest" ↳ "I want to be direct while keeping this constructive. Here's my perspective..." ↳ Maintains respect while being truthful The truth is, how you handle conflict impacts how leadership sees you: ↳ As a bridge builder or bridge burner ↳ As a problem solver or problem creator ↳ As future leadership material or a liability What’s one workplace phrase you wish people would stop using? ♻️ Repost to help your network to navigate workplace conflict! ➕ Follow Meera Remani for more career transforming insights.

60–70% of pressure comes not from workload, but from unclear communication and misaligned expectations! Leading consulting teams through demanding projects has taught me valuable lessons about maintaining effectiveness under pressure. Here are some approaches that have worked well for me and my teams. 💙 Building Sustainable Systems 1. Clear Communication Channels: One of the most important shifts I made was creating transparency around project constraints and timelines. When teams understand the complete context - including challenges and limitations - they can contribute more meaningfully to solutions. This also helps in setting realistic expectations with stakeholders early on. 2. Iterative Delivery: I've found that delivering work in phases, with opportunities for feedback and refinement, creates better outcomes than trying to achieve perfection in one attempt. This approach allows for course corrections and ensures we're aligned with client needs throughout the project lifecycle. 3. Capacity Planning: Building buffer time into project plans has been crucial. When unexpected requests arise - as they inevitably do in consulting - having some flexibility in the schedule allows the team to respond without compromising quality or well-being. 4. Regular Check-ins: Informal conversations with team members, beyond formal status updates, have proven invaluable. These moments help identify potential roadblocks early and ensure everyone feels supported during intensive project phases. 💙 Continuous Improvement 1. Prioritization: Learning to distinguish between genuinely urgent matters and routine requests has improved our responsiveness. Not every issue requires immediate attention, and being thoughtful about prioritization helps maintain team energy for what truly matters. 2. Balanced Intensity: During particularly demanding phases, I've learned to be transparent about the intensity level and ensure that busy periods are followed by lighter ones. This rhythm helps teams sustain performance over the long term. 3. Leading by Example: Being open about challenges while demonstrating problem-solving approaches builds team confidence. Leadership doesn't mean having all the answers - it means navigating uncertainty thoughtfully alongside your team. 4. The Consulting Journey: High-pressure situations are part of consulting work. Success comes from building systems, teams, and approaches that can handle intensity while maintaining quality and team well-being. What approaches have you found effective in managing demanding projects? Always interested in learning from fellow leaders in this space. #ConsultingLife #TeamManagement #ProjectManagement #ProfessionalGrowth #Consulting

In the last major internal conflict I had, I stopped and thought: am I the first one to live this?! Hostility. Threats. Ah, and I was in the car on the way back from the hospital from giving birth. Nice welcome back 😂 Managers spend up to 40% of their time handling conflicts. This time drain highlights a critical business challenge. Yet when managed effectively, conflict becomes a catalyst for: ✅ Innovation ✅ Better decision-making ✅ Stronger relationships Here's the outcomes of my research. No: I wasn't the first one going through this ;) 3 Research-Backed Conflict Resolution Models: 1. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model (TKI) Each style has its place in your conflict toolkit: - Competing → Crisis situations needing quick decisions - Collaborating → Complex problems requiring buy-in - Compromising → Temporary fixes under time pressure - Avoiding → Minor issues that will resolve naturally - Accommodating → When harmony matters more than the outcome 2. Harvard Negotiation Project's BATNA Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement - Know your walkaway position - Research all parties' alternatives - Strengthen your options - Negotiate from confidence, not fear 3. Circle of Conflict Model (Moore) Identify the root cause to choose your approach: - Value Conflicts → Find superordinate goals - Relationship Issues → Focus on communication - Data Conflicts → Agree on facts first - Structural Problems → Address system issues - Interest Conflicts → Look for mutual gains Pro Tips for Implementation: ⚡ Before the Conflict: - Map stakeholders - Document facts - Prepare your BATNA - Choose your timing ⚡ During Resolution: - Stay solution-focused - Use neutral language - Listen actively - Take reflection breaks ⚡ After Agreement: - Document decisions - Set review dates - Monitor progress - Acknowledge improvements Remember: Your conflict style should match the situation, not your comfort zone. Feels weird to send that follow up email. But do it: it's actually really crucial. And refrain yourself from putting a few bitter words here and there ;) You'll come out of it a stronger manager. As the saying goes "don't waste a good crisis"! 💡 What's your go-to conflict resolution approach? Has it evolved with experience? ♻️ Share this to empower a leader ➕ Follow Helene Guillaume Pabis for more ✉️ Newsletter: https://lnkd.in/dy3wzu9A

As I meet more people, especially budding tech founders, a recurring question is about leveraging partnerships as a revenue channel. One key aspect that often stands out in these discussions is identifying the right partner. The right partnership can provide up to 80% leverage in your ROI by aligning perfectly with your goals and capabilities. Consider the example of a health tech startup partnering with a large hospital chain. By integrating their cutting-edge telemedicine platform with the hospital's extensive network, the startup was able to provide virtual health services to a vast number of patients. This partnership enabled the startup to scale rapidly and gain credibility in the healthcare market, while the hospital chain could offer innovative services to their patients without developing the technology in-house. To help identify the right partner, I recommend using a simple framework like the "PARTNER" scoring model: - 'P'urpose Alignment: Do your missions and goals align? - 'A'ccess to Market: Can they help you reach new or larger markets? - 'R'esource Complementarity: Do they offer resources you lack and vice versa? - 'T'rust and Reliability: Can you trust them to deliver consistently? - 'N'etwork Synergy: Do their connections and networks benefit you? - 'E'conomic Benefit: Is the partnership financially advantageous? - 'R'eputation: Does partnering with them enhance your brand image? By scoring potential partners on these criteria, you can identify the one that offers the best strategic fit and highest potential for ROI. #B2BPartnerships #TechFounders #BusinessGrowth #StrategicAlliances image - courtesy to Freepik

“Our sales cycle is 3 months, so we expect to see an ROI from partnerships in 6 months.” That’s one of the most common, and dangerous, misconceptions internal stakeholders have about partnerships. Unlike direct sales, partnerships aren’t a short-term play. Sure, there are exceptions where deals ramp up quickly, but banking on that is a mistake. Realistically, partnerships often take 18–24 months to generate measurable ROI. The challenge? Most executives and department heads don’t think in years. If they’re not aligned on the long game, they might assume partnerships are just “coffee chats” and relationship-building without tangible results. Meanwhile, the sales team is closing deals in a fraction of the time. So what’s your excuse, right? Here’s the reality: • Developing a strong strategy takes time. • Securing the right partners takes longer. • Negotiating, integrating, and operationalizing the partnership? That’s another level of complexity. Not every partnership works out, and even the successful ones rarely deliver overnight wins. The timeline isn’t just double a typical sales cycle. It’s 4 to 5 times longer. If you’re leading partnerships, it’s on you to set clear expectations. Make sure leadership understands why partnerships are a high-leverage growth channel, and why real impact takes time. Because when done right, the ROI is exponential.

The CEO looked exhausted. "My leadership team is fighting again. - CFO wants to slow down. - CMO wants to scale. - CHRO says we don’t have the people yet". He paused. "Is this a problem I need to fix?" I asked: "When you listen to these three perspectives, what is each leader trying to protect for the company?" He thought for a moment. - "The CFO is protecting stability. - The CMO is protecting growth. - The CHRO is protecting our culture". "And if any one of those voices were missing," I asked, "what would the risk be?" He sat back. "We’d be flying blind. We’d either overextend or stall." "So, how does that change how you see this 'conflict'?" "It feels less like a personality clash and more like a strategy debate," he admitted. "I don’t need them to stop disagreeing. I need to help them integrate those different needs". ✨ Most leaders treat peer conflict as a fire to put out. But usually, it’s just business complexity showing up in human form. 🫴 Growth vs. Profitability 🫴 Speed vs. Quality 🫴 Innovation vs. Stability ✨ The best teams don't avoid conflict; they use it to make better decisions. I’ve put together 5 practical ways to handle these tensions in the carousel below: 1. Quarterly Alignment: Clarify priorities and trade-offs. 2. Curiosity over Judgment: Move from "Why are you blocking?" to "Help me understand". 3. Reciprocity: Support their priorities now to build trust for later. 4. Valuing Perspectives: Ask "What are we missing?" instead of "Who is right?". 5. Monthly Conflict Checks: A 30-minute rhythm to name and explore tensions. One Action: Slide 11 has a simple checklist to start this week. Which one are you picking? Build one bridge at a time. #Leadership #CXO #ExecutiveAlignment #LeadershipTeams #ExecutiveCoaching #ICFCoach

Five Signs Your Consulting Partner Is Selling You Tech—Not a Solution A hard truth: many consulting firms are beholden to the larger technology providers, including the hyperscalers. Too often, they operate more like sales arms for those platforms than as trusted advisors focused on your business outcomes. If you see these five things happening, there’s a good chance you’re being sold technology—not a business solution. 1. The platform shows up before the problem is defined. If the recommendation starts with a cloud provider, product suite, or architecture pattern before anyone clearly defines the business issue, that’s a red flag. Real advisory work starts with the problem, not the vendor. 2. Everything somehow leads to the same stack. When every client, every workload, and every transformation seems to end with the same answer, you’re not getting strategy. You’re getting a quota-driven playbook. 3. ROI is vague, but the technical roadmap is detailed. If they can give you 40 slides on migration waves, landing zones, and AI services—but can’t quantify value, risk reduction, speed, or business impact—you’re looking at a tech sale dressed up as consulting. 4. They minimize alternatives too quickly. Trusted advisors explore options, trade-offs, and fit-for-purpose architectures. Sales-led partners dismiss alternatives early because the goal is placement, not optimization. 5. Success is measured by deployment, not outcomes. If the definition of success is “go live,” “licenses activated,” or “cloud spend committed,” you should worry. Success should be measured in operational improvement, revenue impact, cost efficiency, resilience, or time-to-market. The best consulting partners are willing to tell you not to buy, not to migrate yet, or not to overbuild. That’s what independence looks like. If your partner can’t separate your business needs from their vendor incentives, they’re not advising you. They’re selling to you. #Consulting #DigitalTransformation #CloudComputing #TrustedAdvisor #EnterpriseArchitecture #BusinessStrategy #Hyperscalers #TechLeadership #CIO #CloudStrategy

PE partners I've been talking to are asking different questions when they look at consultancies than they were 18 months ago. The traditional due diligence checklist for a professional services acquisition has been fairly predictable for years. Revenue growth, EBITDA margin, client concentration, staff turnover, pipeline visibility. All still relevant. What's new is a layer underneath that was rarely asked about even 18 months ago. Investors want to know how a consultancy actually uses AI internally, not the pitch deck version. They want to know whether team sizes have changed on comparable projects, whether pricing has shifted as a result, and whether the gross margin trajectory reflects something real or just a good quarter. The metric that keeps coming up is revenue per head. I wrote about this last week. The traditional consultancy benchmark sits at around £100-120k per head. The consultancies that PE partners are talking about as interesting right now are pushing well beyond that, because smaller teams are doing the same or more work. That changes the maths on what a business is worth. Contract structure is getting more attention too. A consultancy that's still 80-90% time and materials looks different to one that's shifted toward fixed-price or outcome-based work. T&M revenue is easier to underwrite, but it's also more exposed. When AI makes delivery faster, a T&M model means you earn less for the same outcome. PE partners are starting to see that exposure as a structural risk, not a timing issue. There's also what I'd call the mirror test. Is the consultancy using AI internally the way they claim to use it for clients? If they're selling AI transformation while running their own operations on spreadsheets and manual processes, that gap tells you a lot about how deep the adoption really goes. None of this means the traditional metrics don't matter. A consultancy with strong client relationships and healthy margins is still attractive. The new questions sit on top of the old ones, trying to work out which businesses have a model that will hold up in three years, and which ones are coasting on a way of working that's already being disrupted. We're still early in this shift. Most PE due diligence processes haven't fully caught up yet. The conversations are changing though, and founders thinking about an exit in the next few years should be looking at their business through this newer lens before someone else does.