The Good Consultant · Part III: Influencing · Early draft
Kind Isn't the Same as Good
Honesty
One of the biggest lessons I've learnt didn't come from a failed architecture, a difficult programme or a technology decision.
It came from looking in the mirror.
For a long time I believed that being a good consultant meant being agreeable. I wanted people to enjoy working with me. I wanted to build relationships, avoid unnecessary conflict and create a positive atmosphere. Those instincts aren't wrong. In many ways they're essential.
The problem is that, over time, I realised I was occasionally protecting relationships at the expense of outcomes.
I wasn't lying.
I wasn't avoiding difficult topics altogether.
I was simply softening them. Waiting for a better moment. Choosing language that felt safer. Hoping people would eventually arrive at the same conclusion without me having to say the uncomfortable thing out loud.
Sometimes they did.
Often they didn't.
That's when I realised I'd confused being kind with being good.
A good consultant doesn't measure success by whether everyone leaves the meeting happy.
They measure success by whether the organisation is in a better position because of the conversation that took place.
Those aren't always the same thing.
Some of the most valuable conversations I've had have also been the most uncomfortable. Not because they were confrontational, but because they challenged assumptions people had quietly built careers around. They questioned strategies that everyone else had accepted. They surfaced risks that had become invisible through familiarity.
Those conversations weren't enjoyable.
They were necessary.
There is, however, an important distinction.
This isn't permission to become blunt, arrogant or provocative for the sake of it. Challenging people is easy. Helping them accept a difficult truth without losing trust is considerably harder.
That's where professionalism matters.
A good consultant doesn't speak truth to power because it feels courageous. They do it because remaining silent would fail the people who asked for their help.
Equally, they don't challenge every idea simply to demonstrate independence. They challenge when the evidence demands it, and they do so with respect, empathy and genuine curiosity.
The objective is never to win an argument.
It's to improve the quality of the decision.
I've found it useful to ask myself a simple question before difficult conversations:
Who am I trying to protect?
If the honest answer is myself, because I want to avoid discomfort or preserve my reputation, then I'm probably about to make the wrong decision.
If the answer is the client, the organisation or the people affected by this decision, then the difficult conversation usually becomes much easier to have.
I've also learnt that trust isn't built by agreeing with people.
It's built by consistently acting in their best interests, especially when that's uncomfortable.
Clients rarely remember the consultant who always agreed with them.
They remember the one who respectfully challenged them at exactly the right moment.
Looking back, I don't think my responsibility has ever been to become my client's friend.
Friendship may happen, and when it does it's a privilege.
But it isn't the mission.
The mission is to leave people, teams and organisations stronger than they were before I arrived.
Sometimes that means encouragement.
Sometimes it means reassurance.
Sometimes it means asking the question everyone else is avoiding.
Good consulting requires all three.
Questions to leave with
- Am I protecting the relationship, or the outcome?
- What truth am I avoiding because I want to be liked?
- Would remaining silent make the organisation stronger or simply make me more comfortable?
- Have I earned the trust required to challenge this assumption?
- When people remember working with me, will they remember how agreeable I was — or how much better they became?