The Recommendation the Sponsor Does Not Want
A consultant is 8 weeks into a 12-week organizational design engagement for a 900-person insurer. The sponsor is the COO, who commissioned the work to justify consolidating three claims units into one. The consultant's interviews and workload data (n=41 interviews, 6 months of throughput data) point the other way: the three units serve materially different claim types, and consolidation would likely raise cycle time for complex claims. The COO has already told the board that consolidation is 'the direction.' The consultant's firm has a $300k follow-on implementation opportunity contingent on this engagement going well. The COO asks the consultant to 'focus the report on the synergies' and to leave the cycle-time finding out of the executive summary.
1. How should the consultant handle the COO's request regarding the report?
Read the worked answer
The consultant must not suppress a material finding at a sponsor's request. Report the evidence, including the cycle-time risk, and let the client decide.
Reasoning:
- The finding is material: it bears directly on the decision the board is being asked to endorse. Omitting it would make the report misleading, which is a competence and integrity failure regardless of who asked.
- 'Focus on the synergies' is acceptable as emphasis; 'leave the cycle-time finding out of the executive summary' is suppression. The line is whether a reasonable reader would be misled about the decision's risk.
- The follow-on opportunity is a conflict of interest that must not influence the analysis. The consultant should recognize it explicitly and, if it is distorting judgement, disclose it.
Actions: (1) Keep the finding in the report and executive summary, framed constructively: here is the risk, here are the conditions under which consolidation still works (e.g. carve out complex claims). (2) Offer to walk the COO through the evidence before the board meeting. (3) If the COO still insists on removal, escalate within the consultant's firm and document the request.
2. The COO threatens to end the engagement early and withhold the final payment. What is the consultant's position?
Read the worked answer
Hold the professional position while managing the commercial and contractual consequences deliberately.
Reasoning:
- The consultant's obligation is to deliver an honest, evidence-based report. A threat to withhold payment does not change what is true or what is professionally required.
- Contractually, the consultant should check what the agreement says about termination, deliverable acceptance, and payment for work performed. Work completed to the agreed scope is generally payable regardless of whether the client likes the conclusions.
- Escalation is appropriate: inform the firm's engagement partner, keep a written record of the request and the threat, and consider whether the relationship can continue productively.
A sound response: deliver the report as evidence requires, state in writing that the findings are the consultant's professional conclusion, note the payment terms for work performed, and offer a facilitated session with the COO to explore options that address the business goal without suppressing the risk. If the client terminates, the consultant documents the position and pursues payment per contract. The consultant does not trade the finding for the follow-on work.