Suchergebnisse

In this article we explore the construction of occupational identity amongst a new and significant occupation: management consultants. Extending a conceptual framework developed by Fine (1996), we argue that occupational identity is not a consistent whole, but constructed from imagery to interpret and manage situations commonly experienced by occupational members. We argue that consultants, as an occupation, face three key structural constraints as features of their work, which we term, legitimacy, efficiency and vulnerability. On the basis of our interview data, we identify five social roles around which occupational `rhetorics' are constructed — professional, prophet, partner, business person, and service worker. We explore how consultants use these rhetorics to respond to issues of legitimacy, efficiency and vulnerability, and also highlight how different imagery is used based on its situational salience.

Abstract

The performance and legitimacy of management consultants have come under increasing criticism within the business press, while academic literature has emphasized the often intangible nature of consulting services.


Based on extensive interview data, we find that consultants and clients commonly rely on subjective assessments of consulting impact and 'impression management'.


A countervailing 'high‐impact' rhetoric is discerned among large consulting firms which stresses the measurable, bottom‐line results of consulting interventions.


We interpret this discourse as a legitimation strategy aimed at countering the growing critique of consulting. However, we note that this strategy has served to heighten client expectations and that consultants continue to face the dilemma of successfully managing client perceptions of consulting success.

Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Over the years, there have been a number of attempts to construct typologies of workplace industrial relations. Each of these typologies has been useful in helping us to differentiate between workplaces, but we have doubts about the comprehensiveness and applicability of these typologies, and concerns that authors do not justify why they have chosen to focus on certain variables to the neglect of others. The aim of this paper is to offer a review and critique of some of the most widely quoted typologies of workplace industrial relations, before putting forward our own ideas. We have constructed a typology for understanding and predicting how the process of industrial relations change will proceed at workplace level, which is illustrated by examples from our own research. It is hoped that this paper will stimulate further discussion about the nature of typologizing as well as contribute to our understanding of workplace industrial relations.