Consulting in Context: Legitimacy of Management Consultants in Public Administration and at Universities

IF 7.6 0 MANAGEMENT Management Revue Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.5771/0935-9915-2022-1-19
Tim Seidenschnur, Julia Galwa, Georg Krücken, Rick Vogel
{"title":"Consulting in Context: Legitimacy of Management Consultants in Public Administration and at Universities","authors":"Tim Seidenschnur, Julia Galwa, Georg Krücken, Rick Vogel","doi":"10.5771/0935-9915-2022-1-19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Management consulting has spread to almost all institutional fields. While scholars have largely acknowledged consultants’ role in implementing and legitimising decisions (i.e., legitimation by consultants), less is known about how consultants themselves gain legitimacy (i.e., legitimation of consultants). New institutionalism suggests that legitimacy building refers to the broader institutional context in which consulting takes place and will therefore unfold differently in different fields. By following this reasoning and integrating the institutional work concept, we argue that active clients play an important role in legitimacy-building processes vis-à-vis external consultants. We use data from semi-structured interviews with 38 clients and 41 consultants in two fields beyond the traditional consulting business: public administration and universities. Our analysis shows that in both fields, management consultants source their legitimacy from a broad range of institutional values and processes. In public administration, they have to adapt to a bureaucratic organisation and hierarchy, which gives rise to field-specific interpretative patterns. At universities, consultants do not only have to account for the managerial and administrative thinking of universities’ administrations but also for academic perspectives and traditions in the organization. In both institutional fields, clients who are active in consulting processes co-construct consultants’ legitimacy. However, the role they take as consultants’ partners contrasts between the fields. This is indicated by differences in the way how the failure of a consulting project and its consequences for clients is perceived.","PeriodicalId":47269,"journal":{"name":"Management Revue","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Management Revue","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5771/0935-9915-2022-1-19","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Management consulting has spread to almost all institutional fields. While scholars have largely acknowledged consultants’ role in implementing and legitimising decisions (i.e., legitimation by consultants), less is known about how consultants themselves gain legitimacy (i.e., legitimation of consultants). New institutionalism suggests that legitimacy building refers to the broader institutional context in which consulting takes place and will therefore unfold differently in different fields. By following this reasoning and integrating the institutional work concept, we argue that active clients play an important role in legitimacy-building processes vis-à-vis external consultants. We use data from semi-structured interviews with 38 clients and 41 consultants in two fields beyond the traditional consulting business: public administration and universities. Our analysis shows that in both fields, management consultants source their legitimacy from a broad range of institutional values and processes. In public administration, they have to adapt to a bureaucratic organisation and hierarchy, which gives rise to field-specific interpretative patterns. At universities, consultants do not only have to account for the managerial and administrative thinking of universities’ administrations but also for academic perspectives and traditions in the organization. In both institutional fields, clients who are active in consulting processes co-construct consultants’ legitimacy. However, the role they take as consultants’ partners contrasts between the fields. This is indicated by differences in the way how the failure of a consulting project and its consequences for clients is perceived.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
背景下的咨询:公共管理和大学管理顾问的合法性
管理咨询已经扩展到几乎所有的机构领域。虽然学者们在很大程度上承认顾问在实施决策和使决策合法化(即顾问的合法化)方面的作用,但对顾问自己如何获得合法性(即顾问的合法化)知之甚少。新制度主义认为,合法性建设指的是咨询发生的更广泛的制度背景,因此在不同的领域将以不同的方式展开。通过遵循这一推理并整合机构工作概念,我们认为,对于-à-vis外部顾问,活跃客户在合法性建设过程中发挥着重要作用。我们使用的数据来自对38位客户和41位咨询师的半结构化访谈,这些咨询师来自传统咨询业务之外的两个领域:公共管理和大学。我们的分析表明,在这两个领域,管理顾问的合法性来源于广泛的制度价值观和流程。在公共行政方面,他们必须适应官僚组织和等级制度,这就产生了具体领域的解释模式。在大学,顾问不仅要考虑大学管理部门的管理和行政思想,还要考虑组织中的学术观点和传统。在这两个机构领域,积极参与咨询过程的客户共同构建了顾问的合法性。然而,他们作为咨询顾问的合作伙伴所扮演的角色在两个领域之间存在差异。咨询项目的失败及其对客户的影响的感知方式的差异表明了这一点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Management Revue
Management Revue MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: Management Revue - Socio-Economic Studies is an interdisciplinary European journal that undergoes peer review. It publishes qualitative and quantitative work, along with purely theoretical papers, contributing to the study of management, organization, and industrial relations. The journal welcomes contributions from various disciplines, including business and public administration, organizational behavior, economics, sociology, and psychology. Regular features include reviews of books relevant to management and organization studies. Special issues provide a unique perspective on specific research fields. Organized by selected guest editors, each special issue includes at least two overview articles from leaders in the field, along with at least three new empirical papers and up to ten book reviews related to the topic. The journal aims to offer in-depth insights into selected research topics, presenting potentially controversial perspectives, new theoretical insights, valuable empirical analysis, and brief reviews of key publications. Its objective is to establish Management Revue - Socio-Economic Studies as a top-quality symposium journal for the international academic community.
期刊最新文献
The Moderating role of Organizational Tenure on the Relation between Job Crafting and Job Boredom: A Study on Accountants Women and Leading Positions in Germany: The Role of Promotion Programs for Women Diffusion Patterns in Small vs Large Capital Markets – the Case of Value-Based Management Mathematical Management – Operations Research in the United States and Western Europe, 1945 – 1990 Accountability is a Two-way Street: The Meaning of Accountability and Informal Accountability Practices in the Monastic Context
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1